Pat,
I agree with you 100%. I was sort of sympathetic to some of Mark Shea’s comments and criticisms, but he does paint with a broad brush and I always hate it when people on either side assume their counterparts are FOX drones. I watch FOX, but only Special Report and mainly because I have a sadistic desire to yell at the TV when Juan Williams talks.
Any, the point is, there is a lot of strawmannery going on and we all need to chill. There may be some kooks in the TP movement, but there are serious kooks an crooks serving now, in the House. And, there would be no TP movement had not our President and the Dems misinterpreted the 2008 election as a mandate to turn us into Sweden. You push too far one way, you get a reaction, and sometimes that reaction will be messy. But you only have yourself to blame for the Iottas and O’Donnells of the world.
Good discussion, though. I hope Mark takes this little jab in good humor.

Look out!  I RP’ed as a Cardassian for years—if I could afford a uniform and makeup, I TOTALLY would’ve dressed up as the character, too.

Beware!  Foxfier, a Catholic Conservative blogger, has been an unapologetic lizard space Nazi/Soviet!!!

I read Mark Shea’s piece to which you are responding, and understand how anyone who labels him/herself as “conservative” and “Catholic” may have a hard time with that piece.

One key aspect of Shea’s argument, if I understand correctly, is a kind of “Country First” nationalism that appears to deal with issues in terms of how they are currently framed in ‘popular politics’ and political debates.

Sadly, I have to say that I have seen what Shea is critiquing manifest itself on EWTN’s “The World Over” show, and in (some of) the perspectives of that show’s host, Raymond Arroyo.  Most notably (and disgustingly, in my opinion), was with the Scott Brown US Senate race, where Arroyo openly applauded the Republican Brown’s victory over his Democratic opponent, despite the fact that *neither* candidate held a pro-life position.  Arroyo’s elation at Brown’s winning of the election was (in my opinion!) based primarily on an “anti-Obama / pro-Republican” political ideology alone—otherwise how could a Catholic who understands the teachings of the Church on Human Life be so happy to see a pro-choice candidate win?  “The Good Republican beat the Evil Obama-Democrat! Yay!”  I think this is one instance of what Shea is critiquing.

As a final point, I must challenge this statement:

“Glenn Beck is an entertainer, not a conservative leader.  No matter how many times Mark or anyone else asserts that Glenn Beck is the defacto leader and philosopher of conservatives, it still be no more true than saying Keith Olberman is the defacto leader of liberals.”

While I most certainly wish your statement were accurate, and most likely it is accurate for thoughtful folks who consider themselves to be ‘conservatives,’ Glenn Beck has a media reach that places him right in the eyes and ears of many, many Americans.  Radio & TV shows, at least 7 politically-themed books with catchy titles, and, let us not for get, a Rally/March in our nation’s capital. This multi-media saturation places (forces?) Beck into the role of spokesperson for many (but not all) who call themselves ‘conservative,’ even if his leadership position is only of a titular nature.

Olberman is a poor contrast, as he has one politically-themed TV show on a low-rated network (MSNBC) and three derivative books.

Jason, I too sometimes cringe at Arroyo’s antics, but his evident joy at Brown’s victory wasn’t simply Republican triumphalism. It was probably also rooted in relief that the Obama juggernaut was not unstoppable, and the Brown victory had to signal better times for the pro-life movement and conservatives.

Anyway, you want everyone to act perfectly according to your standards. It’s not possible. Shea was unfairly representing his foes and in so doing was manifesting a testy defensiveness and lack of charity towards his critics.

I like Shea because he challenges those of us who are conservative, and he does it in a prophetic way rather than as a liberal does w/ an agenda and error.  Shea doesn’t “preach to choir”, but as an orthodox Catholic, he calls us to examine closely if we are being inconsistent,  hypocritical, and authentically orthodox.  Shea’s style is “homiletic” and prophetic, which is why it’s hard to receive.  It’s called fraternal correction or constructive criticism.  There need to be more like Shea on both sides of the isle.  There is a need for us when we hear from a Shea, whose intentions are pure, to be docile and open for growth, rather than defensive and reactive.  Jesus had the same problem when he preached to conservatives and liberals.  So it’s no surprise Mark is taking heat.  Once again, Mark.  Bravo for having the courage to challenge us… rather than just reaffirm what we already know.

I couldn’t have said it better. What would be an interesting follow-up to this article would be if Mark Shea would respond to Pat. I confess that, while I am fond of Shea’s writings (usually), I did find myself shaking my head when he painted with such a broad brush. It would be an interesting discussion if Shea would address Pat’s comments.

I just wrote the National Catholic Register to demand an apology for Shea’s column.

Blanket condemnation of fellow Catholics with accusations we disobey the bishops, salute the Waffen SS and such is not acceptable discourse.

It’s not just a way to gin up readership and clicks - it’s an outrage.

Pat, From your description of yourself, I’d say maybe it wasn’t you that Mark had in mind when writing his piece, so why get upset?

Shea employs hyperbole when he writes, as did Jesus when He spoke.  Jesus said things like: anyone (how’s that for a “blanket”) who does not hate his mother, father, wife, children, siblings, cannot be his disciple.  He also said if you look at a woman w/ lust you’ve committed adultery… and even poke your eye out, cut off your hand, etc..  Pretty shocking, over the top stuff.  Mark is using hyperbole, and it worked.  He got under our skin, got our attention.  In humility, docility, self examination as “conservatives”, we need to ask ourselves if we go “too far” at times.  I know that I have, and grow from such reminders.

Mark can be a bit of a pinko sometimes, but as others have pointed out, it is good to have our beliefs challenged by a fellow orthodox Catholic.  He’s spot on when it comes to criticizing Republicans who support torture.

Actually “spot on” isn’t quite correct.  Shea accuses people who have not endorsed torture as being pro war crimes.

It’s whom.  WHOM is Mark Shea talking about?

Go back to third grade.  This time, do it in a public school, where you’ll learn a little more than how to count your rosary beads.

Okay, Andrew, I think you need to calm down, there. The Waffen SS reference is related to a specific person by the name of Iott, from Ohio, who has been defending by conservatives - Catholics included - after he expressed admiration for the accomplishments of Nazi Germany. He did WWII reenactments and, in an example of the nationalism referenced by Jason V. above, he chose to avoid the “Western front” Nazis who would have fought the Americans in favor of the “Eastern front” Nazis, who would have massacred the Catholic Poles. When I realized that people were glossing over this crap for no other reason than Iott is a “Tea Party” candidate and this is an election year, I got hot under the collar.

I adore Mark Shea’s writing both here and elsewhere, because he tries to go through the entirely laudable process of separating out his religion from his politics. I think that if the teaching heritage of the Church tells us anything, it is that social justice can be achieved in line with a Catholic understanding through various economic systems. Capitalism as it is practiced in the West is not the only or even the best model. In fact, there is a lot economically and socially about the Right that I find distasteful as a Catholic. There is a strong social Darwinistic streak to a lot of Republican economics which I would argue is very…inappropriate for a Catholic to espouse.

The problem seems to be that ever since abortion became the extremely important issue that it is, we Catholics have gotten subsumed into a broader political ideology which, tinged in this particular case with a strong moral imperative, has turned us into somewhat reflexive foot soldiers for an ideology we don’t otherwise need to follow. Remember that most Catholics in this country, prior to the moral divide of abortion, were quite happily Democrats, and the world was not upended in fire. At any rate, our integration of a purely political ideology into our religious sentiments leaves us open to slavishly adhering to the dictates of a party dominated increasingly by neo-conservatives who are, indeed, more interested in starting needless wars than in pursuing a moral domestic policy. How many years, in total, were the Republicans in power, and in fact allowing funds to go to abortion through back doors? It’s been going on since 2002, as I’m sure Archbold is aware.

What Mark Shea does, and what I hope he continues to do for a long time in spite of knee-jerk silliness like Andrew Wolfe’s, is to challenge us to ask ourselves whether we are doing something because it is a religious mandate or because it is a blindly held political position. Remember, you can’t be a cafeteria Catholic, but I don’t think there’s any judgment on God’s part if you’re a cafeteria conservative, cherry picking the good and leaving the awful.

Also, I’m sorry Mr. Archbold, but if you expect me to believe that you’ve never met a Catholic about whom any of this is predicable, then I have to say that you are full of crap.

I can’t say with absolute certainty that I disagree with Mark’s belief that a Catholic should not vote for any candidate who endorses a grave evil.  If I could have voted in the last election, I would have voted for McCain, but he supports embryonic stem cell research.  This is disturbing to me and I’m not sure I know what the right answer is.

A few years ago, I had to stop reading mark’s blog because it made me kind of crazy. Reading this post and the ensuing comments confirms once again that I did the right thing.

I don’t know anything about Iott’s political stances, but I do know that when people are doing historic reenactment, someone has to play the enemy or it’s not much of a reenactment. The lesson from all this, as far as I can tell, is: Stick to reenacting any of the Allies if you want to go into politics—or better yet, don’t pick a period more recent than the American Civil War.

I like both columns. It is good to be reminded to examine your beliefs, per Shea, and it is good to be reminded that there are plenty of reasoned people out there, as Archbold said. Politics leaves a lot of room for people to disagree about the best way to achieve an agreed-on aim, and that is what we need to be doing—not picking an extreme position and not examining it. I know plenty of Catholic conservative and Tea Party members who are exactly the sort that Archbold writes about, but there are plenty of the type Shea talks about too, just as there are plenty of “Catholic” Nancy Pelosi types. We have to stay away from those extremes.

Mark lives by denouncing both sides. It is a very effective ploy at times, especially if you want a liberal to listen to you, you know, to point out just how silly conservatives are. But like the author here, I hang with conseravitve folks and and am sympathetic (generally) with the puroposes of most teapartiers.  . . And I have never met some one or even really heard someone even close to as loony as Mark says conservatives are.

Perhaps you may not know them, but I believe they are writing to Mark (and posting in his combox).  Perhaps, you have never met them but like others, I have met a few.  I have several fellow homeschoolers who are quick to say, “have you heard Glenn Beck recently”?  When I comment I haven’t (and won’t), they are amazed.  How could I ignore such an intelligent commentator?  Easily, for like Mark I don’t have a TV but even if I did, I not to turn to him for commentary on anything. 

Why?  Honestly, if he is so smart why did he abandon his Catholicism for Mormonism and more so - why does he continue to do so?  To leave the Church in one’s youth due to poor formation and ignorance is one thing.  However, to refuse to revisit the Church and its truth and teachings as an adult when there are amazing teachers out there who would help you on your path is hard to understand.  If he cannot be ‘trusted’ in this matter of faith and eternal life, I’m not eager to trust him in regard to anything else.

But back to Mark and his writing.  Broad brush or not, hyperbole excused - I believe the point Mark is striving to make is judge carefully who you are listening to and voting for and weigh everything against what the Church teaches.  If we do that, I am sure we will find all of them lacking in the fullness of truth and wisdom (as they are neither Christ nor the Church) but some are lacking more than others and it is not wrong to point that out.

I think it is fair to say not everyone who professes to be Catholic does the necessary critique of the message and the messenger - especially in regard to talking heads.  Too many folks feel If they speak out against abortion - they MUST be okay regardless of any other issue.  If they hate Obama they are to be trusted regardless. 

This, I believe, is the point being made.  Of course, not every conservative is as Mark describes, but in all truth not every one is as you describe either.  I’ve met more than a few who’ve made me cringe.

Pat… I fully concur with your response to Mark’s gross mischaracterization of (politically) conservative Catholics. It is strange how little tolerance and understanding is shown by those like Mark who claim to carry the standard for tolerance and understanding. While I will continue to read and enjoy his columns, he seems to be on path of superficiality. Perhaps the best example of this is his analysis(?) of nuclear defense issues.

Dear Patrick,

Nice to meet you. You have told us what “you” believe, but you’ve made Mark’s case for him. What does the Church believe, Mr. Archbold? That is what conservatives (and liberals) seem to be missing in this discussion.

What you describe as free enterprise might be - again I said might be, unless you define your terms - the very economic liberalism (classically defined as capitalism) Pius XI attacks in Quadragesimo Anno.

So what does the Church teach about the poor? Is the solution “prosperity” or a distribution of property to balance out the inequities? What does the Church teach about competition, the free market, the nature of the State, the relationship between Church and State, “freedom,” usury, or even governance by “the will of the people”?

Unfortunately, most Catholics (so-called conservatives) have INTUITIVELY assumed what you describe - self-made beliefs, instead of actually studying the social teaching of the Church. “I believe..I believe” instead of actually studying how the Church sees Herself. It is for this reason we have liberation theologians on one end, and social/fiscal libertarians on the other.

Conservatives have learned their political theories from secular or Protestant sources, or Catholics who have promoted existing political partisanship, platforms based on one or the other side. Even subsidiarity has been misunderstood to simply imply smaller, private initiative, based on a Republican view of decentralized power.

What is a just contract? Is it really what John Stuart Mill says it is? Was Jefferson right to say “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg”? Is the word “Creator” sufficient to identify who God is, and wouldn’t this very problem lead to the societal, economic, and political problems we have today?

Pope Leo was right and it isn’t a fringe group Mark is talking about at all. Until the Church in America confronts this issue, we’ll keep voting for the “lesser of two evils” and we’ll end up right where we were 30 years ago, which is exactly where we are today.

“Shea’s style is ‘homiletic’ and prophetic, which is why it’s hard to receive. It’s called fraternal correction or constructive criticism.”

“Fraternal correction” presupposes a “fraternal” relationship, which Mark Shea does not have with the people whom he tars. To the contrary, Shea often makes enemies of people who remain unconvinced by “constructive criticism,” which is marinated in contempt and spiked with ridicule.

Ahhhhh!  The distributists are here!  Richard Aleman: Please read this article by Thomas Woods about the folly of distributism:
http://mises.org/daily/1062

@ Jack:

As opposed, I assume, to the scores of documented converts brought over by the Archbolds’ high-minded dialogue?

Methinks that if I’m going to be consuming contempt and ridicule in my diet, it might at least be for something worthwhile as opposed to something that will turn me into a gibbering ideological shill.

Of course, if you have that idea of Mark and his writing, then you might be a little too far gone down that road.

Dear “A Real Conservative,”

It’s who—not whom.

The question is “Who is Mark Shea talking about?”

The word whom would be used if the question was stated, “To whom is Mark Shea talking?”

Your insult was pointless.

After reading the first paragraph of Mr. Wolf’s initial post (wrongly stating the facts about Iott), I don’t think I need to pay too much attention to his factual assessments. Maybe I’m just too far gone of course.

Dear “Michael,”

No, it’s really “whom.”  I promise.  When the answer to the question would be “him,” for example, you use whom.  And more accurately, the question should be “About whom is Mark Shea talking?”

I must admit after reading one of Mark’s articles on conservatives I almost decided we must not be of the same religion.  I have often felt a person couldn’t possibly be a liberal and a Catholic at the same time.
  How can one condone abortion, take God out of everything, feel a just war is worse than the killing of millions of unborn babies, etc.  How can one watch the funeral of Ted Kennedy, concelebrated by five priests with many adoring Catholics present and many more watching adoringly on national tv and feel no guilt? Many feel Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and the rest of that gang have a right to communion believing that abortion is all right while a person that is divorced for good reason can’t receive the Eucharist. Something is wrong here!  I am a Catholic and firm in my faith but I do have to turn the other way or it would be easy to lose it.  Conservatives believe we all have an obligation to help others and we do.  We just don’t believe in the Robin Hood idea of stealing from others to do what you think is right.  Jesus asks us to give to others, not have the government do it for us. 
How can one say that Glen Beck is bad.  They don’t watch him because they won’t because they are so liberal.  Why is he Mormon? Because he was an alcoholic and that is the only religion that says not even one drink.  Makes sense to me.  He has never run down another religion.  He is trying to tell us the reasons why our constitution was written the way it was and why we should get back to it.  If liberals would watch him they might learn something.
  Finally, we should pray for the liberals. They know not what they do.

I agree. When Mark started ranting about “people who get the teaching from Glenn Beck”, my reaction was “WHO?”

  And as an adherent of what was labeled a “strange church” that “doesn’t believe in normal things” by Missouri Democraps, I get very annoyed by Mark’s repetitions of “Beck is a Mormon, so no Catholic should listen to him.”

What a relief to hear Pat actually say what I have been feeling for quite some time.  I know that during Mark’s attack against Angle (Harry Reid’s opponent,) several commenters said they simply would not be reading what Mark wrote from now on.  Only problem…then those who disagree do not have the opportunity to state the other side.

I started watching FOX during the Terri Schievo tragedy.  I became literally sick to my stomach listening to the garbage CNN was espousing.  A Christian friend told me about FOX, I bumped up my dish coverage, and boy was that $5 worth it.  What a breath of fresh air!  CNN, ABC, NBC,and CBS are all left leaning.  Is FOX right leaning?  Of course it is, but FOX does not lean more to the right than CNN leans to the left.  So why does Shea always attack FOX, but not the other stations?

When it comes to politics, Mark always seems to be batting for the wrong team.  As Catholics we should be limiting evil, and working to help the oppressed. We can disagree on the best way to achieve those ends, but constantly ripping Republicans (whose platform most closely follows Catholic teaching,) and seldom mentioning a criticism of Democrats (who’s pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage, pro-fetal stem cell research, pro-euthanasia, pro-human cloning planks are in DIRECT OPPOSITION to Catholic teaching) leaves me frustrated and feeling that the National Catholic Register has been betrayed.

Mark Shea, arrogant and judgmental, not exactly breaking news.

I did not see the broadcast (I don’t watch TV at all, which is why I am still mentally healthy) but a local commentator wrote a piece describing a segment in which Glen Beck and his producer, Pat Gray, made a comedy routine out of a man who lost all his possessions, including his four pets, because his local fire company stood and watched his trailer burn because he had not paid his $75 fire company dues. If this is true, Mr. Beck does not deserve the respectful attention of anybody.

I have read plenty of Mr. Wood’s treatment, and I think he, along with yourself Pat B., may wish to read the encyclical, Ubi Arcano.

“Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

“There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism”(Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio §60-61).

Pat:

If what I wrote does not apply to you, then I rejoice.  However, if you are wondering whether it doesn’t apply to anybody on the Right, then I can only suggest that you read my comboxes (or several of the comments right here).  The examples I gave came from my own readers.  So, for instance, A Proud Conservative reads all criticism of any conservative figure like this: “I must admit after reading one of Mark’s articles on conservatives I almost decided we must not be of the same religion.  I have often felt a person couldn’t possibly be a liberal and a Catholic at the same time. How can one condone abortion, take God out of everything, feel a just war is worse than the killing of millions of unborn babies, etc.”

That is simply astounding to me.  Criticize some Ohio GOP candidate for belonging to a group that hails the Waffen SS as brave idealists, get told that you are not a Catholic and that you are a liberal who supports abortion and wants to take God out of everything.

Seriously, if anybody wishes to understand what I’m responding to, all they need to do is read the comments on my blogs.  I’m basically a conservative myself, so my intention is not to tar the entire Right.  But the fact remains that the Right has certain pathologies that need to be addressed rather than denied.  So I wrote about it.

The hopeful thing is that many folks in this combox, themselves quite obviously conservative, are seeing the problem and making noise about it.  As I said, I want the conservative to win, because I think the Left is a disaster.  But by “win” I don’t mean merely “win the election”.  I mean I want a healthy conservatism that conserves, not a radicalized “conservatism” that is remaking itself in the image and likeness of it ideological enemy.  The only hope the Right has is that it remains in union with Christ.  But the consequentialist mindset that has become rampant on the Right does not bode well for that.  So I do as conscience bids me and make noise about that fact.

If, in your case, the shoe does not fit, then don’t wear it.  But a quick glance at my comboxes makes it clear that it does fit elsewhere.

One last point.  I’ve been told repeatedly that I used a broad brush.  I confess I don’t understand that.  If I had simply written “Why I am so Hard on Conservative American Catholics” that would have been a broad brush.  But, in fact, I narrowed the focus to a very specific sort of Conservative American Catholic in my first line: “...who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?”

If that’s not you, then that’s not you.  But, as I just mentioned, in my comboxes, that’s plenty of people.  I’ve had people in my comboxes declare that when the Pope states unequivocally that the prohibition against torture “may never be contravened”, well that’s just his prudential judgment and we can just ignore him.  I’ve had people declare that America is the closest thing we have to Augustine’s City of God.  I’ve had people declare that Glenn Beck is a prophet.  I’ve had readers declare that the guidance of the Magisterium is worthless.  And on and on.  Conservatives who keep their heads on straight (and they obviously do exist because some of them are responding right here) were not who (or is it whom? :)) I am addressing.  So I have to deny the “broad brush” charge.  I had in mind a particular sort of conservative who tries to reduce the faith to an ideology and who excludes people from the faith merely because they violate a tribal shibboleth by speaking critically of a conservative candidate.  Not infrequently, I have seen that quickly devolve (as above) into a declaration that the *real* reason Candidate Jones is being criticized is because of a secret love of abortion, atheism, and gay marriage.  It’s an absurd thing to say, and only demonstrates my point about the danger of reducing the faith to identification with a political ideology.

I have absolutely encountered people like those Mark is talking to, both in real life and online.

Mark:
I may not agree with you on some particulars, but anyone who thinks that you are a secret lover of abortion, atheism, and gay marriage is an idiot.  Although I think that Pat A’s criticisms have some merit, fundamentally we are all on the same side.

By “we” I don’t mean torture defenders and folks like that, but rather orthodox Catholics in general.

Amen, Mr. Achbold.

Thanks, Pat.  And yes, you are right.  Basically we are on the same side.

“Most notably (and disgustingly, in my opinion), was with the Scott Brown US Senate race, where Arroyo openly applauded the Republican Brown’s victory over his Democratic opponent, despite the fact that *neither* candidate held a pro-life position.  Arroyo’s elation at Brown’s winning of the election was (in my opinion!) based primarily on an “anti-Obama / pro-Republican” political ideology alone—otherwise how could a Catholic who understands the teachings of the Church on Human Life be so happy to see a pro-choice candidate win?  “The Good Republican beat the Evil Obama-Democrat! Yay!”

Brown’s victory was applauded because it was thought that Brown’s vote would derail the abominable healthcare plan.  Unfortunately, Pelosi and Reid managed to render Brown’s victory meaningless.

I don’t think the issue is whether there are absolutely no people that might fit Mark’s description - undoubtedly there are.  Rather, the question(s) are: Do they represent a significant amount of the right to enable one to make fair generalizations about an entire movement, and (2) are we even accurately portraying beliefs and motivations for those beliefs?  For instance, is it it fair to accuse someone of being a Fox-News sheep just because they have a firmer position on the issue of illegal immigration than one holds themselves?

Oh, and I might as well state for the record I’m not quoting Mark in that last sentence above, just making a more general point about how we characterize others.

Mark Shea, I’m sure you would agree that we are in a very real culture war.  The culture of life against the culture of death.  We fight in this war by how we vote.

You constantly hammer away at the conservatives, who support the culture of life.  Why? 

If you are “just trying to make Republicans better,” why not some qualifying statements to that effect?  As your “average Catholic reader” that’s NOT the message I’m getting from you.

When you just keep ripping away at conservatives, it feels like…well, you’re just ripping away at conservatives AGAIN!

Mark,
Thanks for your comments.  Truth is, I agree with you on very many things.  However, I continue have a problem with using the antics of combox crazies to synthesize any kind of meaningful critique of American Catholic Conservatives.  Caveats and disclaimers aside, I don’t think that I am alone in construing this a general critique rather than one limited to those in the combox.  Phrases like “that thing that used to be conservatism” serves to generalize the critique not narrow it.  A post about “commenters sometimes say outrageous things!” would hardly be newsworthy.  In fact, if I thought that my comboxes are a fair representation of the outside world, I would likely never leave my house. 

For the reasons stated above and others and with caveats duly noted, I took your critique to be a general one.

Are there some kooks out there?  For sure.  But outside of seven people in my combox, I don’t really know them.  That is my point.

Only the dog that gets hit with the rock yipes

A real catholic is one who puts the Church first and everything below. Whether one is called a conservative or modern, there is no change for Truth and Justice. As Church upholds Truth, Justice, patriotism, Freedom, equality. Social obligations,  Soft corner toward sufferers, what is better qualification for the teachings or principles propped up by the so called progressive or modern humans ?

I find Thomas Sowell to a man of great common sense.  I read his column faithfully.  He tells it like it is.  I put my Catholic Faith, God, first.  This country is in great danger right now with the agenda of our president and all he has surrounded himself with.  Our freedom is at stake, so start finding out the true facts, pray, and vote for those that will bring us back to where we, as a country, were meant to be.

I have two comments: first, Mark Shea has repeatedly stated his case against conservative Catholics. Can we expect in the name of fairness and balance at least one article wherein he goes after the liberal Catholic?
Secondly, it seems to me there is quite a difference between those who identify as conservative Catholics…and Catholic conservatives!

Can we expect in the name of fairness and balance at least one article wherein he goes after the liberal Catholic?

ThirstforTruth, are you kidding me?  That’s a huge chunk of Mark’s blog!

“I don’t know anyone who puts Glenn Beck or any other host ahead of the Bishops.”

You must be living in a cave.

I know a few people who think Glenn Beck is the greatest thing ever, but I am trying to think of a solid Catholic who does, and I can’t.  And I know plenty of solid Catholics.  Glenn Beck appeals to Conservatives without the one true faith.  That’s my opinion.

Ah, iron sharpening iron.

Perhaps the Time has come for a liberally-conservative Catholic Party that conserves all of The Truth while applying The Truth liberally.

Hi Pat:

You write:

Thanks for your comments.  Truth is, I agree with you on very many things.

Yep.  That remains the first and most important fact.

However, I continue have a problem with using the antics of combox crazies to synthesize any kind of meaningful critique of American Catholic Conservatives.  Caveats and disclaimers aside, I don’t think that I am alone in construing this a general critique rather than one limited to those in the combox.

I wasn’t limiting my critique to people I meet in the comboxes, but neither do I think that the average comboxer is a “crazy”.  Rather, I think the average comboxer is average and that an experience of comboxers over the years gives you a fair good sense of what the temperature is out there.  So, for instance, I don’t think the comments on this thread are statistical outliers but are, instead, pretty representative of the diversity of opinion (unless you mean to say that the many people agreeing with you are crazy, which would mean your opinion is crazy, which it manifestly is not—though I naturally disagree with it).  So while crazies can certainly be found in comboxes, as in any sample of the population, I don’t think they are representative.  Indeed, as was my point in the blog on Iott, I think that troubling thing is not that crazies are found in a group: it’s when the group choses people who are astoundingly irresponsible (such as Sharron Angle with her “second amendment remedies” talk or Rich Iott’s group celebrating the brave idealists of the Waffen SS.  That’s not fringe comboxers.  That’s the leadership.  And when you criticize that leadership and the overwhelming response is some variation on a command to be silent or the accusation of being a secret liberal abortion supporters (a charge I hear monotonously), then I conclude that I’m not looking at the fringe but at a problem that is endemic in that particular subculture.  I could be wrong, I suppose.  It could be that only “crazies” as you put it are responding to my bleats of complaint about irresponsible leaders on the Right.  But if I am, I think it’s an honest mistake, if mistake it is.  Only, I don’t think it is.  I think the average comboxer is average.  And this seems to be borne out by the polls.

So, for instance, during the endless discussions of torture over on my blog, it looked to me like self-identified “faithful conservative Catholics” were more than normally willing to defend torture.  Polls bore this out nationally, showing that people who identified as conservative Catholics were more likely than the average American to support the use of torture.  The average comboxers turned out to be average.  I think much the same is true here.  So I think it’s idle to pretend, for instance, that Glen Beck is “just an entertainer” when thousands show up on the Mall to get spiritual leadership and political guidance from him.  He’s a conservative leader.  And he’s a conservative leader who *several million* people regard as a better source for guidance on social teaching than they do the Magisterium.

Phrases like “that thing that used to be conservatism” serves to generalize the critique not narrow it.  A post about “commenters sometimes say outrageous things!” would hardly be newsworthy.  In fact, if I thought that my comboxes are a fair representation of the outside world, I would likely never leave my house. 

The thing that used to be Conservatism refers to the tendency of post-modern conservatism to reject its former principles of small government and a humble approach to the ability of earthly power to effect spiritual change, as well as Catholics claiming not to be “cafeteria” Catholics.  In fact, what is now known as conservatism has a highly hubristic faith that we can build the Great Society abroad and effect massive spiritual change in the Islamosphere with sufficient money and ammunition.  In pursuit of this secular messianic goal, it has encouraged Catholics on the right to embrace the defense of torture and to reject the Church’s plain teaching with “ends justify the means” thinking that is indistinguishable from the consequentialist defenses of abortion offered by the the Thing that Used to be Liberalism.  I oppose consequentialism as a moral heresy, no matter who does it.  But, as I said in my piece Monday, the reason I’m particularly hard on conservatism is because I believe the words of Our Lord: “that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.  (Luke 12:46-48).

People who call themselves “Progressive Catholics” are generally quite clear that they hold the teaching of the Magisterium in utter contempt when it gets in their way.  They may do this with a real knowledge of the Church’s authority and a sinful will that deliberately despises Christ who stands behind the Magisterium.  They may do it because they are clueless and have never learned what the Magisterium is nor where it’s authority to teach comes from.  Charity supposes the latter.  But when the special boast of a Catholic is that he is faithful to the teaching of the Church and not one of those liberal cafeteria Catholics, then he had better indeed *be* faithful to the Magisterium.  That doesn’t just mean opposing abortion or contraception.  It means the whole magillah.  What bothers me is how often the average combox Catholic talks as though opposition to abortion constitutes our entire duty when it comes to Catholic social teaching and how frequently I am told that when the Church says something threatening to conservative doctrines, it is rejected—sometimes with a forceful amount of contempt.

Again, if that ain’t you, then I rejoice.  But as others have noted, there are in fact plenty of people in conservative circles who do this routinely.  That’s *why* (to cite just one example) I was forced to argue for *years* with people who just could not believe that the Church’s teaching on torture could really apply just as much to the Right as her teaching on abortion applies to the Left.

Gotta jet.  I have another article due.  Thanks for a civil and intelligent disagreement.  God bless your work in the Vineyard, Pat.

“Brown’s victory was applauded because it was thought that Brown’s vote would derail the abominable healthcare plan.  Unfortunately, Pelosi and Reid managed to render Brown’s victory meaningless.”

Not so fast, Brian English.  While you are correct that the jubilation Arroyo had for Brown’s victory was because it was believed that would now kill the pro-abortion Democrat Party’s dictatorial Obamacare bill which would have ended the Hyde Amendment and mandated public funding for abortion for the first time, and also eliminate the conscience clause protecting health care workers from having to participate in the intentional murder of a patient in or out of the womb, it wasn’t a total defeat for the decent people in our government and in the country.

I say that because not only did the Democrats expose how evil they are by insisting on paying for abortions with taxpayer money and ending the conscience clause, they now did it in such way that reveals their total disrespect and disregard for the people of America and our Constitution. 

They were able to do that for two reasons.  One, the mass media would continue to provide them cover.  And two, their largest, single voting block – church going Catholics – who elected them in the first place, along with the pro-abortion, pro-infanticide President, would continue to support them no matter what they did.  Such bold face evil and arrogance may not offend the sensitivities of the Democrat voting Catholics, including a majority of bishops and clergy, but it has woke up and raised up a majority of decent Americans who will exercise their right to throw such evil people out of office with or without Catholic support.  The power of Catholic Democrats will finally be nullified at the ballot box. And that is a good thing.

“He’s a conservative leader.  And he’s a conservative leader who *several million* people regard as a better source for guidance on social teaching than they do the Magisterium.”

I don’t know much about Beck, so perhaps someone could explain in what way his views on social teaching conflict with the Magisterium?

Thank you Pat. I haven’t read these comments but thank you for your post.  I won’t say anything about Mark Shea aside from the fact that as of late I have not been able to stomach many of his posts when I used to be a huge fan of all things Mark Shea.  I do wish to say you just described me and all the Catholics who are conservative that I know. It’s part of why I love my Catholic faith and friends so much: Catholic first.  Truly.
Thanks.  Ok, now I’ll read the comments between you and he when I get another moment.

P.S.  I don’t have cable and don’t watch FOX among pretty much everything else.

I find Mark a bombastic and a little hasty at times, but I don’t think he paints with a broad brush.  He always makes it quite clear that he is talking about a certain kind of conservative Catholic, or a certain kind of conservative, or a certain kind of child free movementarian, or a certain kind of secularist.  It requires an inattentive read at least to interpret him otherwise.  I have to say, the fact that you are responding to what you think he is saying rather than what he actually says proves his point about tribalism. 

Honestly, I don’t understand how you can not have met the kind of conservatives Mark is talking about.  I meet them all the time, in real life and online.  All I have to do is go into a Catholic bookstore to meet them.  They comment to your blog .. though not nearly as much as they comment to Mark’s.  It might be worse on the Left, but Cafeteria Catholicism is alive and well on the Right.  If Mark’s criticisms don’t apply to you, wonderful.  If they don’t apply to the conservatives you know, you are a lucky man.  But it applies to a very large number of conservative Catholics out there, and denying that fact is to live in a fantasy world.

Mark has an interesting way of looking at things, and I passed along one of his books to my brother, who is thinking about joining the Church as I did last Easter and I’, looking forward to reading his first book on Mary that I bought last month.  Some people compare Mark to (in a small way) Chesterton.

Chesterton had a profound influence on me and I noticed something interesting in his autobiography: he opposed the (popular) Boer war of 1901 or 1900 or whenever it was.  He was upset at the way libel law worked in England.  He did not like some proposed laws.  He stated his reasons, and that was that. He did not go on and on and on and on about it.  He certainly did not launch into attacks on the nut cases on the other side (and every side has nut cases), day after day.  If he had he would be completely unknown today. 

It seems like Mark just doesn’t want to be listed as one of those knuckle draggers and vents his spleen on yet another straw man or looney who posts to his site. I wish he’d just do what he does well and stop trying his best to alienate those of a given party to prove how broad-minded he is.  I have never, not once, listened to Glen Beck and do not have Fox (or CNN) on my TV.  Like Chesterton I don’t particularly like big government or big business, and at a certain size the two sort of become the same thing or at least have the same objectives—two bad things that go worse together.  The left does not normally oppose big business, as long as it is controlled by, or subject to, or in collusion with, big government.

What Chesterton did was to blast away modernisim, warn of post-modernisim, and propose a return to orthodoxy.  We need people like him today, not just another blogger to trade snipes.

@Brian

You know how Shea’s mind works. Apparently Beck said something like “social justice is used by Marxists” once and on another occasion said “health care is not a Constitutional right,” and Shea’s Magical Mind Reading Abilities let him fill in the rest (keep in mind, Shea proudly doesn’t own a TV, so he cannot be speaking based on an extensive knowledge of Beck). Those MMRAs also let Shea divine that any Catholic who disagreed with him was obviously learning the faith from Fox News and had elevated Beck to a bishop.

Mr Shea is clearly uncomfortable with conservatives and traditionalists. Why? I believe he’s an incipent liberal. He’s anti-death penalty, he’s always sundowning the military, and he’s very uncomfortable with people who actively promote traditional and conservative political and religious views. One only has to go to his CALI blog to realize he is obsessed with these issues. In my experiance, only liberals have these hang-ups. If he’s so ncomfortable with us, perhaps he should move over to the other NCR where he’ll feel more at home.

I believe he’s an incipent liberal.

Ah!  An *incipient* liberal.  As in “vehemently suspect of heresy”?  But not yet with sufficient evidence to convict?  Well, let’s examine the proof.

He’s anti-death penalty,

which, being translated, means I take this seriously.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Now why would I think that it’s not uncommon to find people who think their conservative ideology trumps Church teaching merely because, when I accept Church teaching, I am accused of being an “incipient liberal” for doing so?  Let’s continue looking at the bill of indictment:

he’s always sundowning the military,

I’m not even sure what this means.  If it means that I dislike sending troops off to get killed in futile nation-building wars, then guilty as charged.  I think wars should meet just war criteria.  I agree with two Popes and the bishops of the world that Iraq II did not. 

and he’s very uncomfortable with people who actively promote traditional and conservative political and religious views.

This is extremely mysterious to me and I can only ask for some sort of documentation for this manifestly false claim.

So: it appears that I am guilty of believing what the Church teaches and trusting the guidance of the Magisterium—and this makes me an enemy of “traditional and conservative political and religious views”?

That more or less proves what I’m saying about the danger of elevating the human tradition of conservatism above the Church’s teaching.  We’re not just seeing “diversity” here.  We’re seeing failure to conform to a favorite human tradition as grounds for accusing a Catholic in good standing of heresy.

@Kathy16670

You constantly hammer away at the conservatives, who support the culture of life. 

Maybe because many of them don’t support the culture of life, they just support the culture of death in a different way than the liberals. Giving lipservice to the anti-abortion cause can’t act as a sheild protecting a politician from criticism on their support of ESCR, torture, the death penalty, and social systems that contradict Catholic Social Teaching.

Mark,
Is it even remotely possible that a faithful Catholic who takes her cue from the Magisterium and puts the Church first might still be able to appreciate the positive contributions of someone like Glenn Beck from a strictly political and national perspective?  No, he’s not a prophet and no, he doesn’t speak with the knowledge of the faith (because after all, he left the faith), yet he still has something to say that is worth listening to.  If nothing else, he has people once again examining our nation’s founding history and the key players and what they hoped to accomplish for their posterity.  That’s no small thing and we shouldn’t be unwilling to give him some credit.  (Jesus, we trust in YOU.)

Jennifer:

I have never claimed that Glenn Beck has nothing whatever worthwhile to say.  I doubt there are many people on this planet who have *nothing* worthwhile to say.  So that’s pretty much a red herring.  What I have said is that Beck is a highly unstable and unreliable guide and that Catholics commit great folly when they treat him as a reliable one. His analysis of US history is highly dubious and he anoints as sure guides cranks and quacks like Cleon Skousen (who book sales according go through the roof)  Why does Skousen suddenly become a guide to the perplexed? Not because people are thinking, “Oh.  Beck gets something right now and then.  *It’s Because millions of Beck followers—including a huge number of Catholics—think that Beck is a more reliable guide to thinking about a just society than the bishops. Such Catholics are committing supreme folly.  Beck is not the problem.  I regard him as a tragic figure.  The problem is with those who treat him as a reliable guide when they should know better.

Mark defended the accusations against him saying, “Well, let’s examine the proof.” 

The following is his complete written defense on the following accusation.

He’s anti-death penalty,
which, being translated, means I take this seriously.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Now why would I think that it’s not uncommon to find people who think their conservative ideology trumps Church teaching merely because, when I accept Church teaching, I am accused of being an “incipient liberal” for doing so?

The above paragraph ends Mark’s defense.

As a former liberal Catholic and now an informed, self educated conservative who is Catholic, I will present a defense for the conservatives.

President Ronald Reagan said of dealing with the Soviet Union, “Trust, but verify.”  Now the Vatican is nothing like the Soviet Union, but that 3rd paragraph in CCC 2267 Mark relies upon is a bit iffy.  So, let’s see if there is any evidence to support it. 

Hmmm, here’s something.  “Murder from the inside out.”  That’s the headline in a Sunday, April 29, 2001 article in the Orange County Register newspaper.  What could that article be about?  The sub headline says, “ Crime.  Authorities say gang members in prisons, such as those of Nuestra Familia (as an aside, is that a Mexican legal immigrant social welfare family organization? Let’s continue reading and find out) have little trouble conveying sentiments for wanting someone dead, usually with links to the organization.” 

Wow, that sounds—- interesting. 

Paragraph one.  “Some send orders to kill through the mail disguised as letters to lawyers.  Others scrawl notes in tiny letters on scraps of paper and wrap them in plastic for visitors to hide in their bodies.  (I wonder where in their bodies they can hide such notes?)
Paragraph two.  “Federal prosecutors say gang leaders have orchestrated hundreds of murders from inside maximum-security prisons.  The Corrections Department says there’s little it can do to stop the killings, ordered by inmates who have nothing to lose and nothing but time.”

OH My Gosh, that is disturbing!  Let’s skip to the last paragraph, number 23 (I can’t type the whole article here) and see how they wrap this thing up.

Paragraph 22,23. “And in prison, gang members have nothing but time and nothing to lose.”

“They’re at no risk, said Joseph McGrath, Pelican Bay’s warden.” (This is CA’s newest and most high tech, top security prison).  He continued, “Many of them don’t have to worry about being stabbed or challenged by other inmates because of their secure environment.  Yet they can send an order out, and because their structure is so sophisticated they know that if somebody doesn’t carry out their orders, someone else will take care of that person.”  End of article.

I wonder if the writers of CCC 2267 ever investigated the accuracy of what they wrote before writing it.  Seems that they would have done so if what they are going to write is to be taken seriously as factual by the faithful such as Mark has.

Stillbelieve:

Thanks for continuing to illustrate my point.  Your point is: The Catechism is to be credited so long as it comports with conservative doctrine.

Well, here goes.  No red herring intended, first of all. If millions of Catholics are using Beck as their guide rather than the bishops, I can only attribute it to scandal-weariness and disappointment in many of our not-so-fabulous shepherds.  (Not automatically saying their disappointment is justified, mind you!)  But you’re right—that’s no excuse.  The Church is still the Church and there’s no substitute.  The Church is God’s Plan A and there is no Plan B. (And we just have to appreciate our fabulous shepherds all the more and pray for the rest.)  Finally, my oblivion is about to show:  who the heck is Cleon Skousen?

Mark, the only “doctrine” in this discussion is your use of the Catechism to support your, forgive me, liberal, not religious, opposition to capital punishment.  Factual evidence, which I just presented, proves the third paragraph of CCC 2267 are assumptions that are in error. 

That leaves paragraphs number 1 and 2 to having merit…and they authorize governments to use capital punishment if need be to defend the innocent from future harm.  This is current Church teaching which has been Catholic doctrine for centuries. 

Don’t change your mind when presented with factual evidence to the contrary if you don’t want to.  But don’t hide behind error to hang on to your liberal, non Catholic teaching belief, and take pot shots at Catholics who are conservative who prefer to follow authentic Catholic teaching.

I stopped reading Mark about a year ago when he started drifting way out in leftfield saying things like conservatives support torture, apparently thinking any kind of interragation is torture, and than putting that on the same level as killing babies in the womb…....  and critiziung Fox news.

Mark,

This whole episode has been very confusing. If you’re not simply directing your commentary toward strange people in your combox, would it be possible to include names and quotes of the sort of conservative you are trying to describe?

Perhaps it would be helpful for you to make distinctions in your writing between authoritative magisterial teachings on principles (and some specific issues) and areas in which a lay expert may have a legitimate prudential contribution to make, in which he would be allowed to disagree with the prudential judgment of his bishop or pope. Frankly, some of what you’ve written in this combox seems a little bit misleading. I don’t think that Pope John Paul II thought of opposition to the Iraq War (II) as a necessary component of faithfulness to the Church, since I can think of at least one example of someone who had a disagreement with the Holy Father on the issue of whether that conflict met the criteria for a just war, and the pope didn’t seem to think him any less of a Catholic. Of course, it’s important for Catholics to work within a just-war framework. When it comes to determining whether something meets the criteria for just war, do you think that laity at all times and places should submit to the particular judgment of the pope, or, if the pope is silent, to the particular judgment of his own bishop? Or is it possible that this is an area where there could be legitimate disagreement between orthodox Catholics? With the death penalty, you mentioned your opposition to the death penalty as evidence of your faithfulness to Church teaching here in the combox. Perhaps people who disagree with you on the death penalty would be more open to changing their minds if you allowed that they could be orthodox Catholics and support the death penalty. After all, the catechism seems to suggest that if someone believes the death penalty is necessary to protect society, then he should support its use. At this point, the question seems to be moved into prudential grounds. On what specific acts constitute torture, it would probably be best to assume that some of your opponents are not consequentialists. I probably don’t need to remind you that real, live Catholic philosophers have interacted with you in various comboxes from time to time, and you—at times—treated these guys (Edward Fesser comes to mind) with little more respect than you did the “conservatives” in your latest post. And they agreed with your rejection of consequentialism, as all Catholics must, and perhaps even your judgment on what acts constitute “torture,” but disagreed with the irresponsible and misleading way you handle the issue on your blog. Treating it as a tautology doesn’t illuminate anything or enlighten anyone. Appeals to fideism or clericalism, even if useful, and even when certain principles (or policies) should be accepted de fide, are, in my opinion, ineffective when it comes to changing anyone’s mind. Much better, in my opinion, would be to assume that your ideological opponents want to be good, faithful sons and daughters of Holy Church, and to show them with love and much care how revealed dogma and authoritative magisterial principles lead to the conclusions that either you or the magisterium draw.

When you bring up specific issues that divide orthodox Catholics on prudential grounds, it implies that your concern isn’t only with conservative Catholics who came to their political philosophy honestly, under the authority of Holy Church and with the aid of her social teaching.

Let me be clear: I don’t actually think you believe that people who disagree with you on the death penalty, or Iraq, or what specific acts constitute the evil of torture are not being faithful to the Church. But I am saying that I don’t think you’re as clear as you could be when you make distinctions and describe these things. I can understand why people are upset. What do you think?

Stillbelieve:

Give it up. Shea knows what you think better than you yourself do. And how knows that “Catechism bases a conclusion on a factually incorrect premise” = “conservative ideology.” (Strangely though, Shea is very fastidious about demanding citations when people make claims about his thoughts. Funny how that works.)

Mark is NOT criticizing Catholics who put their faith before their conservatism.

Mark IS criticizing Catholics who put their conservatism before their faith.

Is this truly that hard to see?

And yes, I’ve known quite a few of the kind of conservatives Mark speaks of. They won’t read a Papal encyclical, but they eat up Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh like candy. If you aren’t like that, Mark’s not talking about YOU.

Dancingcrane-
Maybe if he could phrase it without massive logical fallacies, he’d have less issues.

The formation:
some Catholics like Beck
Beck has passionate followers
therefore some of Beck’s Catholic followers are more passionate about Beck than about valid authority

is weak as crud.

On a side note, given the tone of his supporters, if I knew nothing about Shea I’d not listen to him.  Between the moronic variations of “if you complain about his statements, you’re guilty of what he claims” and his own failure to respond to a reasonable, CCC based response….

Own worst enemy, anyone?

Hey!  Here’s an idea:
Let’s say “I support Shea because he agrees with the views I already have!”

...

Oh, wait… Irony poisoning is sinking in…..

dancingcrane says, “Mark IS criticizing Catholics who put their conservatism before their faith.”

Seems to me that it would make more sense, and be more useful, if he addressed his concern for Catholics putting their political preference before their faith to liberals.  According to voting records and voter registrations the past four decades, about 50% of Catholics, including clergy, continue to prefer the pro-abortion Democrat Party over being Independents, Decline to State, or Republicans.

The miniscule number of Conservatives who put their political positions ahead of their faith have not caused any harm to human life like liberal Catholics have, from 52,000,000 murdered babies in America alone to the current economic, financial, and unemployment conditions with no end in sight in any one of those areas.  Seems to me Mark’s concerned more with the splinter he seems to see in the Conservatives’ eyes, than the plank in the Liberals.’”

I read Shea’s blog quite a bit. As someone who is generally conservative—though not on all issues—and Catholic I think it’s useful to be reminded that there are no political saviors on either side of the aisle. Republicans can and will mess up and do evil things just as Democrats have.

That being said, I totally do not agree with his assertion that he can’t vote for either Dems or the GOP because both support “intrinsic evils.” For one, I don’t think the Republican Party itself endorses torture anywhere near as much as the Democrats endorse abortion.

Plus, I KNOW from experience that sitting out elections or going third party/independent because the two major party candidates aren’t good enough, oftentimes only enables the WORST candidate to win.

Ever wonder how Illinois ended up electing that clown with the bad hairdo (Blagojevich) twice? Well, because the GOP candidate who ran against him in 2006 was deemed not good enough by many conservatives (she was pro-abortion, though not nearly as pro-abort as Blago), and they sat out the election, and others who were disgrunted with Blago voted for a Green Party protest candidate. The GOP and the Greenie split the vote between them, and guess what, Blago won.

Those of you who live in other states can probably think of other examples, but you get the point.

“Let me be clear: I don’t actually think you believe that people who disagree with you on the death penalty, or Iraq, or what specific acts constitute the evil of torture are not being faithful to the Church. But I am saying that I don’t think you’re as clear as you could be when you make distinctions and describe these things. I can understand why people are upset. What do you think?”

I think that is exactly what Mark believes.

Stillbelieve, thanks for the information that backed up my statement about the death penalty. Law enforcement experiance shows that when most criminals are arrested for the first time, they have already commited several crimes. The same is true about murder. Years ago, we didn’t know what we know now about serial murder. Research keeps showing that many murderers, when they are arrested for the first time, have already commited other murders. So how is putting these guys behind bars going to protect society? Yor post shows that some gang members can order hits from behind bars. Previous posts by you commenting on other Shea posts shows murder of other inmates behind bars is quite common. So how do you protect society with a life sentence when they still kill behind bars? Yeah Shea, how do you do it?

I agree with you 100%.  I am a Catholic conservative who puts his Church first.  But I also agree with many points of the tea party.  Mark misses the mark, because people are dissatisfied with the economy.  Big government will never help poor people but hurt, because restrictions are always put in place.  I feel that non-profit groups such as our Church and even the Salvation Army can do better then the government.

But I am also concerned when the government gets into things like health care, and abortion results.  Already some Catholic hospitals are closing because of “women’s reproductive health” issues.  I shudder if same-sex marriage is written into law (thanks to our Supreme Court) as our Catholic agencies will be closing and our Church will be also in danger, not even considering our small businesses not willing to participate.

And, Mark, I am not a Fox Viewer, though I’ll admit some of the things they make public do not appear in our public media.  I think that that’s what the Tea Party is all about—-less government and more say so from the voters.

Hi
I am Carolyn and I am a Catholic Conservative just like you!
Thanks!

THe only logical construct that Mark is focusing on is this:

“Putting one’s politics before one’s faith is wrong.
Some Catholic conservatives put their politics before their faith.
Therefore, some Catholic conservatives are wrong.”

Foxfier, your logical formation is faulty, your premises and conclusion do not logically follow, and Mark isn’t saying that anyway.

Jesus was slammed by the Jewish authorities, too, for going after the ‘good guys’ (the Pharisees, the Temple-supporting moneychangers) and giving the ‘bad guys’ (publicans, prostitutes, Samaritans) a ‘pass’.

Jesus wasn’t really giving the ‘bad guys’ a pass, just holding everyone up to the same standard. Jesus didn’t need to tear into the ‘bad guys’, anymore than Mark has to tear into the pro-aborts. We, just like Jesus’ audience, already know that they are wrong. I’s the ‘good guys’ that need the prophetic voice. It’s gold that needs refining by fire.

Jesus was handed over to the Romans by ‘good guys’ who put political expediency before their faith in God. They were certainly a minuscule number compared to the whole of the Chosen People. One traitor in the good guy’s camp does more damage than many enemies.

The hardest people to teach are the ones who think that they’re already doing it right.

dancingcrane:

You grok me perfectly.  Thanks for getting it.  Conservatism can’t be murdered.  But it can commit suicide.  The “No True Scotsman” fallacy which says that no *real* member of Movement Conservatism ever puts ideology before the Magisterium (despite the abundant evidence right in these comboxes that plenty of people on the Right are ready willing and able to do that) is, I think, an act of denial of the obvious.  It necessitates believing that many of the people who are agreeing with the premise of this post are “crazy” as Pat put it.  I don’t think they are “crazy” or representives of some fringe.  I think they are a fairly normal statistical sample of opinions found in large proportions on the Catholic Right.  The rule of thumb is: Take the Church’s teaching as normative on, say, the death penalty and you will get labeled a “liberal” by quite a large number of voices on the Right.  More than this, you will not find too many voices *opposing* that easy smear.  The contempt for the Church’s guidance on this and other matters not related to abortion is palpable—which is, again, my point.  Saying that the people radiating this contempt are average and not fringe (at least among conservatives) is, I think, a reasonable conclusion.

dancingcrane -
Of course his formation is wrong, that’s the POINT.  That would be why it’s labeled weak as crud.

Incidentally, while technically correct, your formula assumes that there are Catholics making their politics primary and comes to a conclusion other than what Shea was forming (Posted by Mark Shea on Tuesday, Oct 19, 2010 7:32 PM (EST)) here.

I’m so glad I am Catholic. I didn’t always feel that way. We have a church founded by Christ Himself and have so many gifts within it. When my husband died the only thing that gave me comfort was saying the rosary every night, sometimes with tears falling through the entire way. Our Mother Mary was with me and gave me such peace.  I feel so blessed now to be a part of the Universal Church and all it’s teachings and sacraments. I can see so many positive changes even in my parish and so many Holy priests are coming in. The teachings have always been the same but not always taught like they should have been, expecially in the 70’s. God is so good to us. I thank Him every day for calling me to His church from the beginning of my life, and I will follow Him until my death.

@ Amy

You said [Conservatives] don’t support the culture of life, they just support the culture of death in a different way than the liberals…support of ESCR, torture, the death penalty, and social systems that contradict Catholic Social Teaching.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Liberals support, GOP rejects

Torture - we don’t have enough time or space to go into this one here.  Well respected Catholic Theologians all have their contributions to make.  What constitutes torture?  Who’s definition?  Until the theologians can all agree, we will not make any headway here.
(Liberals say “can’t even use sleep deprivation,” GOP says “to save thousands of innocent lives, some physical pressure may be applied.”)
[Just some food for thought…I work in a medical profession that often requires long hours, and lack of sleep.  My son, whom I am very proud of, is in the military.  Some of our military heroes are water boarded as part of their advanced training.]

The death penalty- please read comments above.  It is allowable in some very limited circumstances.  (Liberals reject, some GOP support)

Social systems that contradict Catholic Social teaching…you need to site specifics here.  Fr. Benedict Grochell, who works in the slums of New York, stated that the Democratic Party WAS the best at taking care of the poor 50 some years ago.  However, the tides turned, and the last 30 years or more, the Republican Party does a much better job caring for the needs of the poor.

So again, let’s look at platforms that support the culture of life.  The 5 intrinsic evils…
1)  Against Fetal Stem Cell Research – Republican
2)  Against Homosexual “marriage” – Republican
3)  Against Abortion – Republican
4)  Against Euthanasia – Republican
5)  Against Human Cloning – Republican
The Democratic Platform is in favor of the 5 intrinsic evils that support the Culture of Death.

I’m a conservative Republican BECAUSE I take my Catholic faith seriously!

If Shea would simply say “while I could NEVER vote for Harry Reid, I’m a little worried about his opponent, Sharron Angle.  She made a reference to ‘2nd Amendment Remedies,’ and I’m just certain that means she wants people to start a revolt.” (Or whatever a fair interpretation would be.)

OR…“While CNN (and the rest of the liberal media) is certainly leagues away from Catholic teaching, even FOX news gets it wrong once in a while.”

But I’ve never seen it.

I’m a Catholic who belongs to a Tea Party group that meets on the grounds of a Catholic historical church.  It started with a handful of Catholic people and grown to over 500 people in less than a year. The Tea Party group is Pro life (anti abortion /ethunasia). We start off with a prayer,and then The Pledge of Aligiance to The Flag. We have had speakers such as Star Parker who is running for Congress and other pro life candidates running for public office. We disscuss the propositions etc… We end by singing patriotic hymns lead by a Catholic man who served in military defending our country.
I have participated in Tea party rally’s for almost two years now.I have nothing but good to say about the “movement”. I do watch Glenn Beck and I think God is using him to warn the people on the dangers of Marxism and liberation theology. I have known of this danger before watching Glenn Beck. Sadly, I have witnessed promotion of libertion theology and Marxisim first hand by Bishops and priests even some “orthodox” ones. Which is truely disturbing and discouraging at times. I pray Glenn Beck comes back to the Catholic Church but I can understand why he left from the poor example of Catholics in his life. Still no excuse, but God will judge him on that.  However I still think God uses people we least expect or we don’t think are worthy to warn us of dangers. In my district I am voting for a prolife former Calvery chapel minister and not the pro abortion “catholic”. Perhaps if the Bishops and clergy in this country remained faithful and ferverntly preached the Teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church, this nation would of stop abortion Roe v’wade and the Church’s would be filled with faithful strong Catholics being the salt of the earth. This nation perhaps would of been a differnt place than it is right now. Since it is not, I will get into the trenches and fight for my Faith, family and Country becuse my life and my soul and the lives and souls of the world are at stake!

Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Liberals support, GOP rejects

False.  Bush 43 approved ESCR.  McCain supported it too.  That’s why I didn’t vote for him (I also didn’t vote for Obama).

Re: abortion.  The GOP pretends to care each election year, but the fact is we’ve had 30 years of promises and we remain at sub-Carthaginian levels of respect for the unborn.  Republican presidents phone it in each Roe v. Wade anniversary and Republican pols don’t like to stand too close to prolifers when they don’t have to.  Bush Senior gave us David Souter.  Other Republicans gave us Harry Blackmun (author of Roe), Anthony Kennedy (author of Carhart) and Sandra Day O’Connor.  Bush 43’s first choice for the Court was the pro-choice (but loyally sycophantic) Harriet Miers.  His other appointments were Roberts and Alito, both of whom are on record as stating that Roe is “settled law”.  In short, the GOP doesn’t care about abortion except as a lever for keeping prolifers voting them into power.  Once in power, they offer only the most minimal token efforts in opposing the current regime and give ever indication that they always will (unless they can, as McCain deeply hoped, offer even less).  Is abject apathy and the wish that abortion will go away better than the Democrat commitment to abortion?  Sure.  And death by gunshot is, on the whole, preferable to death by a wasting disease.  But that’s not really a strong endorsement.

Re: torture.  Prisoners died from it.  When people die from enhanced interrogation, it was torture.

Re: death penalty.  I have never said that the death penalty is intrinsically immoral.  However, the *fact* is that the *normative* position of the Church is that the death penalty should be applied as rarely as possible, while the position of the GOP is that it should be applied as often as possible.  In short, the Church is minimalist to the point of saying we don’t need it for all practical purposes while American conservatism is generally maximalist.  And when you adhere to the basic position of the Church, you get labeled a “liberal”.  As I say, the Church’s teaching is thrust away with just as much contempt on the Right as on the Left when it is inconvenient to ideological loyalties.

As to the GOP caring for the needs of the poor: How?  That’s not to say the Dems do (I don’t think either party cares).  Both parties are run by oligarchs who are primarily interested power and wealth.

If Shea would simply say “while I could NEVER vote for Harry Reid, I’m a little worried about his opponent, Sharron Angle.  She made a reference to ‘2nd Amendment Remedies,’ and I’m just certain that means she wants people to start a revolt.” (Or whatever a fair interpretation would be.)

I have said—multiple times—that I would never vote for any candidate who supports intrinsic grave evil. How you missed that, I don’t know. Harry Reid has a 29% rating from NARAL, meaning he votes for evil 29% of the time.  I don’t support candidates who vote for evil 29% of the time.  So no, if I lived in Nevada, I would not vote for Reid.

OR…“While CNN (and the rest of the liberal media) is certainly leagues away from Catholic teaching, even FOX news gets it wrong once in a while.”

I’ve criticized the MSM countless times on my CAEI blog (not on this blog as much, because I only get three entries a week).  I would take issue with the notion that FOX gets it wrong once in a while.  Fox is, when the Church is inconvenient, as hostile to Catholic teaching as any other secular outlet.  Just look at Hannity’s treatment of Fr. Euteneuer or the kinky hijinx of Bill O’Reilly.  Looking to this tool of Rupert Murdoch to regard Catholics as anything other than useful cogs in a commercial transaction is, I think, as foolish as expecting CNN to be serious about Catholic social teaching.

But I’ve never seen it.

I can’t be held responsible for your failure to be familiar with my views.

“Other Republicans gave us Harry Blackmun (author of Roe), Anthony Kennedy (author of Carhart)”

How could anyone have known Blackmun would write an opinion like Roe when he was thought to be a constitutional conservative in 1970 when he was appointed?

Reagan tried to give us Bork instead of Kennedy, but with the Senate controlled by the Democrats, and Ted Kennedy slandering Bork at every opportunity, Bork’s nomination was defeated.  If Bork is on the Court in 1992 instead of Kennedy, Casey comes out the opposite way, and Roe and Doe are probably overruled, or at least severely limited.  If there had been more Republicans in the Senate in 1987 the Pro-Life situation in this country would be completely different.

And what is your problem with Carhart?  It upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, and in her dissent Justice Ginsburg insisted it was the first step in overturning Roe. 

“His other appointments were Roberts and Alito, both of whom are on record as stating that Roe is “settled law”.”

Of course it is settled law—until the appropriate case is brought to revisit it.  Do you really not see a difference between Roberts and Alito on the one hand, and Sotomayor and Kagan on the other?  Seriously?

” In short, the GOP doesn’t care about abortion except as a lever for keeping prolifers voting them into power.”

So all the GOP Pro-Life members of Congress are phonies?  Do you have any evidence to support that libel?

Ok, Mark, let’s cut to the quick. Please name all the Catholic dominant countries in the world that have the social, cultural, economic and political realities you are “fighting” for that we are so lacking in our country.  What are the names of those Catholic countries that are so superior to ours due to the Church’s spiritual influence on its people?
Perhaps we may be able to understand your position better if we had living examples.

My mistake:  I meant Casey v. Planned Parenthood, not Carhart.  The one in which Kennedy penned his famous “mystery clause”.

Please name all the Catholic dominant countries in the world that have the social, cultural, economic and political realities you are “fighting” for that we are so lacking in our country.

I don’t think we should compare ourselves to other countries.  I think we should be trying to make the US as close to Catholic social teaching as we can.

Are you seriously suggesting we should *not* be trying to implement Catholic social teaching?

Not that anyone cares anymore, but my differences with Mark are limited to the prevalence of the point of view described by Mark among Catholic conservatives.  He thinks it is more prevalent than I do.

*crickets*

“My mistake:  I meant Casey v. Planned Parenthood, not Carhart.  The one in which Kennedy penned his famous “mystery clause”.”

If Bork had been writing the opinion instead of Kennedy, there would have been no “mystery clause.”

Ironically, Bork was an atheist at the time (he became a Catholic 6 or 7 years ago) while Kennedy is Catholic.

“Are you seriously suggesting we should *not* be trying to implement Catholic social teaching?”

Mark, I am asking you what Catholic dominated countries have succeeded in obtaining this “Catholic social teaching” utopia that you are arguing for here.  If we could see it in action perhaps we might better understand what you are fight for and how to obtain it.

Mark, I am asking you what Catholic dominated countries have succeeded in obtaining this “Catholic social teaching” utopia that you are arguing for here.

None, of course.  But since I’m arguing neither for a utopia, nor for America to be a Catholic confessional state, I don’t see your point.

So I repeat: are you suggesting that we should not be trying to implement Catholic social teaching.  Sure sounds like it, since you dismiss the suggestion as “utopian”.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research - Liberals support, GOP rejects
False.  Bush 43 approved ESCR.

If you will recall I was talking about Party Platforms, not individuals.  Your comment is misleading, if you will recall Bush approved for a short period of time, and then reconsidered (mentioning Catholic teaching on the subject one of the reasons for his change of heart!) He vetoed the FSCR bill in 2006 (much to the liberal’s disappointment.)  But I suspect your pure hatred of Bush clouds your recollection.

while the position of the GOP is that it [the death penalty] should be applied as often as possible.
Really?  “As often as possible?”  PLEASE site your reference, because I’ve never known that to be a party plank.

Re: torture.  Prisoners died from it.  When people die from enhanced interrogation, it was torture.
Again, I ask what is “it” that they died from?  Water boarding, electrodes, beating, sleep deprivation, dehydration?  Theologians disagree on what constitutes torture.  Be specific.

And in your reply to Marty…I also read your Sharron Angle story.  He is right. There was no qualifying statement against Reid, you just smeared Angle.  (She is EASILY the least of the 2 evils, compared to Reid.  That IS Catholic teaching.)
I’ve criticized the MSM countless times on my CAEI blog .  I would take issue with the notion that FOX gets it wrong once in a while.  Fox is, when the Church is inconvenient, as hostile to Catholic teaching as any other secular outlet.
Sorry, don’t read your CAEI blog.
I can’t be held responsible for your failure to be familiar with my views.
I can’t be held responsible for knowing what you say other places, when I only read what you write here.
I take issue with your statement that Fox is as hostile to Catholic teaching any other secular outlet.
In my line of work, I take care of patients.  They (rightfully so,) can have whatever they want on their TV’s.  One lady, who required substantial skilled nursing care, had CNN on 24 hrs a day.  For the 3 weeks before Pope Benedict went to Europe, CNN constantly bombarded stories about our Beloved Holy Father, painting his as a pedophile, and pedophile protector.  I would be in her room for 30 min, and they would air something hateful twice in 30 min.  EVERY time I was in her room, CNN was spewing vitriol against our Holy Father.

CNN= the liberal agenda always and everywhere
FOX = in line with the Christian viewpoint (only it’s not as CATHOLIC as you would like; only Christian, so therefore is just the same as CNN.)  For a smart guy, that’s not very logical.

If you will recall I was talking about Party Platforms, not individuals.

Platforms don’t matter.  What matters is what the President decides to do.  McCain ran on a pro-ESCR position.

Prisoners died from suffocation, beatings, and hypothermia induced by cold cells.  These things are torture.  In some cases, the perps who committed these tortures have been shielded from prosecution not only by the Bush Administration, but by the Obama Administration as well.  Torture is a useful tool that Caesar is loath to abandon once we give him the power to use it.

I didn’t smear Angle.  I quoted her.  If referring to Harry Reid as ridiculous and absurd is not a clear telegraph that I would not support him, then I hope you can accept my word above that I do not vote for any candidate who supports intrinsic grave evil.

I can’t be held responsible for knowing what you say other places, when I only read what you write here.

But you *can* be responsible for refraining from attributing opinions to me that I do not hold, till you know that I in fact hold them.  So, here’s the score:  I don’t support any candidate, Left or Right, who supports grave and intrinsic evil.  Hence, I don’t support Obama or any other Democrat who supports abortion and I don’t support any Republican who supports ESCR or torture.

This is not utopian.  This is bare minimum decency.

My criticism of Angle was not an implication that Reid was better.  It was, simply and solely, a criticism of Angle’s appalling suggestion that guns might be needed to “remedy” what the vote might fail to remedy.

Mark should becareful to open his mouth without proprer study, otherwise he just continue show us how ignorant he is….
I see no one on daily TV suppoeting the conservtive idea other than Fox News.
All the other ones, CNN,ABC,NBC & CBS only support the Liberal Left.  It is this Liberal Left that is the leading neo-pagan, mondern aethism proponets that want the Church abolished. They feed us the anti-Christ message to the point the country is now called a Culture of Death!
The fundamental difference between Liberal and Conservative is the difference between government at the lowest possible level with a loose general govenment vs a central government that controls every aspect of ones life. The former is conservative the latter is Leftist Liberal - like Communism, Chavez in South America, European Socialism, Communist China.  The Leftist Liberal are elitists who operate like they were gods who know all that each individual deserves (there determination) with food, living space, number and gender of children, etc as controlled by the state.  This Leftist Liberal is anti-Catholic and has many dissidant catholics in its ranks, ergo Ms Pelosi, J Kerry, etc.
Pope Leo gave an outline of how localized governing for the people by the people could be tried. This is the core of Conservatism. Without Fox News and the Tea Party,now, and the Bible toting rural Conservative movement we would be in a state best described by the book “1984”.  Whether Beck or O’Reily are prophets, obviously no.
To be as Mr Shae to be a name calling, vague speaking pundent is rediculous and frankly sinful.  He, like Beck, need more knee time in front of the Blessed Sacrament and pray - asking how to conform to God’s will, and not tell God what you want - they might be saints.  Right now they both are a long way off the trail. I pray Mr Shae finds the humility to be more truthful in his endeavors into social/ political issues.

The Hermit of Littleton

I’m guessing the “tortured to death” thing is that ACLU claim?

Stop the ACLU collected a decent selection of mainstream news stories…including the little tidbit that they counted as “torture deaths” due to interrogation when soldiers were charged for their actions.

No.  I’m talking about, among others, the Ice Man.  The murderer has been shielded from interrogation.  And there are others, like Gul Rahman, murdered by hypothermia.  But, of course, it’s always easy to just say “ACLU” and wave the whole thing away. Or failing that, you can always just say that the source of the story is ritually impure (ew!  The New Yorker!), and therefore you don’t have to pay attention to the dead guy in CIA custody.  Or you can just say that the murder was so super secret that discussing it while violate national security.  On this point, there is happy concord between the Obama Administration and the Right.

By the way, given the original topic of this thread, have we reached the point yet where we can acknowledge that there are, in fact, conservatives who will happily blow off Church teaching (about, oh, say not murdering prisoners) when it happens to inconvenience their ideological allegiances?  Or are we to pretend that the people making excuses for torture here are “crazy”?

I think I’ve pretty much said all I need to say on this thread and the torture excusers and “death penalty opponents like Chaput are liberal heretics!” shouters are now pretty much making my point for me.  As I said at the start of the thread Pat is discussing, I’m not talking about all conservative Catholics.  But I am saying that not a few conservative Catholics are quite prepared to throw the normative teaching of the Church overboard when it gets in the way.  The cafeteria is open and the line forms on the Right as well as the Left.

*dryly*  Gee, thanks for going to my link and noticing that Manadel Jamadi was mentioned there, even though it’s from before Gul Rahman’s case came to light.

I think I’m done banging my head against the wall, since you’re clearly just not open to anything that doesn’t fit your world view.  Don’t throw your arm out congratulating yourself on your glorious victory, oh great defender of truth and good.

Dear Pat,

Well, I care, and I love and pray for both you and Mark, even as I love and pray for everyone else here. I’m just glad when we have a chance to clear up misunderstandings, and sad when they continue. People who really do put a well-formed faith first have nothing to fear from anyone.

This is why I personally beg people to immerse themselves in Scripture, Magisterial teachings, frequent Eucharist and constant prayer. Without those, how do any of us know whether the faith we hold is well-formed enough to really take first place before our politics?

I think I’ve pretty much said all I need to say on this thread and the torture excusers and “death penalty opponents like Chaput are liberal heretics!” shouters are now pretty much making my point for me.

Mark, thanks for the idea!  How about we let the good Archbishop settle this disagreement?  Right now he is in “your” camp on the death penalty.  What are you willing to do for us Conservatives that are Catholic who you love to twik if I am able to discuss this issue with Archbishop Chaput and bring him around to our position that the 3rd paragraph in CCC2267 is in error?

I’m not quite sure I understand you.  If you are saying you would like to argue Chaput (and why stop with him?  Why not all the bishops?) into becoming death penalty maximalists, then I say, “Knock yourself out and good luck.”  I am as certain as the sunrise that you will fail, because the normative position of the Church is the normative position of the Church.  But feel free to try.  Only, when you fail, I hope you will consider adopting the normative position of the Church instead of dissenting from it.  If you imagine that you will effect some revolution here and are hoping that, once you do, I will work to spread the good news of death penalty maximalism, I can only inform you that you won’t, and therefore, I won’t have anything to help you with in that department—which is probably just as well because I’m buried in stuff to do already.  Just answering hate mail keeps me busy. :)

What I started to write got sent off prematurely.  When I discovered it, I just let is stand as is.  But since you are unsure of what I meant, I will send what was supposed to be “the challenge.”  It follows:

“I think I’ve pretty much said all I need to say on this thread and the torture excusers and “death penalty opponents like Chaput are liberal heretics!” shouters are now pretty much making my point for me.”

Mark, thanks for the idea.  What are you willing to do for us learned conservatives who are faithful Catholics if I am able to turn the good Archbishop of Denver around?  Presently, he is in “your camp” on capital punishment.  What will you give to use in terms of “booty” if I win him over to our side, which is paragraph 3 of CCC2267 is in error, leaving the first two paragraphs as authentic Catholic teaching?  In other words, capital punishment is necessary to protect the innocent from harm from certain capital offenders and there is no full proof way of providing that other than by capital punishment under our Constitution which provides dignity and rights to such persons while locked away in private, solitary glass wall cells for 23 of 24 hours a day, and allowed out for only one hour a day with no contact with anyone except their guards.

You understand the significance of that?  A man who is destined to be Cardinal someday and possibly Pope will have to buck the whole system of hierarchy for the sack of truth.  What is the likelihood of him breaking from the collegiality the bishops have been muzzled with ever since Bernardin was on the scene with his “save the Democrat Party” scheme of “social justice is prolife, too?”

You understand this is an impossible task I am proposing.  You don’t have to say what you will do as far as “booty to conservatives” goes right now.  Just figure out what is fair.  You can make it public when and only when you see the good Archbishop rethink his position on CCC2267.

I’m afraid I still can’t decode what you mean, particularly about “booty”.  But as I say, you are welcome to try to convince Chaput to be a death penalty maximilist.  However, if I read you right, you’ve already got an excuse prepared for when you fail: Chaput’s a coward who is afraid to buck the system.  What this means, being translated, is “The Magisterium is wrong when it disagrees with my ideological commitment to death penalty maximalism”.

Which was, you know, my point about conservative who put ideology before the obvious teaching of the Magisterium.

So, enjoy life inside the Bubble.  When you fail to persuade a single bishop to reject the normative teaching of the Church on the death penalty (i.e, “inflict it as rarely as possible”) and replace with your ideological commitment to inflicting it as often as possible, you can console yourself that you are wiser than the magisterium of Holy Church.  The cafeteria is wide open for business.

“The cafeteria is open and the line forms on the Right as well as the Left.”

You keep missing a critical point:

“Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

Cardinal Ratzinger, June 2004

You keep missing a critical point:

No. I don’t.

“You keep missing a critical point:

No. I don’t.”

Yes, you do.  The article you link to is Exhibit A.  You actually believe you and Ratzinger are saying the same thing?

It’s impossible to pin Mark Shea down. He will make outragous statements that have no connection to reality, and when somebody tries to call him on it, he will weasel out of it by ad hominum, by making false appeals to authority, or claim that you didn’t understand what he was talking about. Why the editorial board at NCR allows this pathetic excuse for a Catholic commentator to go on like this is a mystery. The other commentators don’t behave like this, so why is Shea allowed to act this way?

You actually believe you and Ratzinger are saying the same thing?

Yes.  I don’t disagree with a word he says in that statement.  I never have.

Mark, “booty” is a prize won in battle, something of value to the defeated which is given to or taken by the victors.  I’m thinking something that you cherish, and conservatives would like – something like your sarcasim, that you would give up to conservatives.  But like I said, you don’t have to tell me what that is until after Chaput agrees with me.  You can think about it until then.

As for your comment, “However, if I read you right.”  Mark, that is the issue – you don’t read me right.  And what I get from your writings, you don’t read any conservatives in this discussion “right.”  For example you said to me, “you already have an excuse for when you fail”.  Mark, I’m not thinking of failing.  I’m thinking of the immense task ahead of me of getting a spiritual leader like Archbishop Chaput to engage me in such a discussion on this, let alone thinking of persuading him that the revised addition of CCC 2267 is in error because of the its new, assumption made opinion in the third paragraph.

Then you even analyzed what you imagined I was prepared to say when I fail, “Chaput’s a coward who is afraid to buck the system.”  No, Mark, such a thought would never cross my mind.  First, I wouldn’t call or even think Chaput a coward.  Second, I would think I didn’t present my case well enough.  On the other hand, the Archbishop might even do a better job convincing me that I am wrong, and that third paragraph is accurate and provable.

Finally, you are incorrect in your analysis of the excuse you attribute to me when you said, “What this means, being translated, is ‘The Magisterium is wrong when it disagrees with my ideological commitment to death penalty maximalism.’” I don’t have an “ideological commitment to death penalty maximalism.”  You realize, Mark, only 2% of capital offenders are given a death sentence?  I’m not committed to anything other than the truth.  I do have a strong desire to seek the truth.  Finding the truth is very satisfying.  I would hope the Magisterium would have the same desire to know the truth, and not be afraid of saying they may have been a little premature in calling for the end of capital punishment once they realized their assumption were wrong.  That development would take one more arrow out of the quiver that the social justice Catholics use to defend their support for the pro-abortion party.

It’s impossible to pin Mark Shea down.

Not really.  I’ve stated my views repeatedly.

As to the rest of your most recent bill of indictment, I see nothing ad hominem, nor a false appeal to authority, or dishonest in asking you to provide documentation for your *last* bill of indictment.

But like I said, you don’t have to tell me what that is until after Chaput agrees with me.

Good luck with that.  You do realize, don’t you, that if you get every bishop in the world to agree that prisons are more dangerous than the wording of the Catechism suggests, that will not make one iota of difference to the Church’s basic position?  The Church’s teaching is not “We infallibly decree that prisons are now safe.”  It is, “Execute people as sparingly as possible, though you may still do so if absolutely necessary to preserve the common good.”  You will not get the Magisterium to back down on that, and that is the real core of the teaching.  That’s why I keep pointing out the difference between death penalty maximalism and minimalism.  The Church is minimalist.  Conservatives in America are maximalist.  “Prudential judgement” does not mean “If it’s not dogmatic, feel free to ignore it and heap contempt on it.”  It means, “Take seriously the judgement of the Church and only dissent from it if you have some really good reason.”

“You actually believe you and Ratzinger are saying the same thing?

Yes.  I don’t disagree with a word he says in that statement.  I never have.”

Come on Mark.  You acknowledge the concept of prudential judgments, but then argue that if those judgments do not conform with the judgments reached by the “bishops and the Church” (whatever that means), you are a cafeteria Catholic, just like all those left-wing Catholics who support abortion.  Ratzinger’s letter stands for the exact opposite of your position.

“That’s why I keep pointing out the difference between death penalty maximalism and minimalism.  The Church is minimalist.  Conservatives in America are maximalist.”

Really?  You would think that with conservatives being maximalists on the death penalty there would have been more than 41 people executed in the country this year.

“That’s why I keep pointing out the difference between death penalty maximalism and minimalism.  The Church is minimalist.  Conservatives in America are maximalist.” 

Mark, sentencing only 2% out of a 100 convicted capital offenders to loose their life for what they did is “minimalist” enforcement.  What you want is capital punishment eliminated disregarding the evidence that even solitary confinement does not protect the innocent in and out of prisons from being harmed by such people.  Chaput also wants to end capital punishment.  So, how are you able to accuse conservatives in America who support the 2% capital punishments to be “maximalist” and the Church “minimalist” when you and the bishops are calling for the end of executions?  I think I have a very good reason for my position on capital punishment concerning the Church’s position - there is no way to guarantee 100% protection against further harm from such people according to the prison experts and reality.

I like Brian’s train of thought here. Mark, have you ever stated on the record that one can accept the principles taught by the magisterium but disagree with some of its prudential judgments, all the while remaining a non-cafeteria, faithful, orthodox Catholic? If you haven’t (but probably somewhere in your past you have), it may be useful to say it clearly or provide a link to where you have stated it clearly in the past.

On a totally unrelated note, and I hesitate to mention it because I suspect you will only address this and not the more important point above, I don’t think it’s right to ever call someone a “tool” for someone else or a “talking wig,” no matter how much you disagree with them. By objectifying these human beings, you use them as means to your own end of making a clever point. In a way, you make these real human beings your own “tools.” This comes perilously close to violating the same principles that make torture, for instance, wrong.

Not really.  Here’s the thing: I don’t believe in Minimum Daily Adult Catholicism in which everything is bifurcated in to “infallible teaching” and “Everything Else, Which You can Ignore if you Like.”  To be sure, I think there are non-negotiables beyond abortion (such as torture, the prohibition against which “may never be contravened” according to the Pope).  And the fact that I run into so many Catholics who labor to say that the prohibition *can* be ignored is, indeed, sufficient evidence for me that the cafeteria is open on the Right as on the Left.

But when it comes to prudential judgement, I acknowledge that Catholics can vary from the bishops on this and that topic.  The problem is that the typical rationale for doing so has basically nothing to do with thinking like a Catholic and everything to do with supposing that “prudential judgment” means “stuff from the Catholic tradition that you can use to accessorize your ideological commitments”.  So, for instance, when it comes to Just War teaching, the way we should approach it is not, “Well, this is all prudential, so if the bishops and the Popes are agaisnt Iraq II and I’m for it, then I can just blow off their guidance and do whatever I like”.  It is rather, unless I can show bloody good reason why Iraq II meets just war criteria, the *default* position of fidelity to the Magisterium is to oppose the war.

I learned this principle from another non-infallible teaching of the Church: Humanae Vitae.  No dogmas there either.  But the clear default position of the Church is that contraception is wrong.  Just blathering about “conscience” and dissenting is not enough.  You have to show a really sound argument that it doesn’t apply to you.  Good luck with that.

And so, when people on the Right cavilierly cite “prudential judgement” and mean by it what Lefties mean by “primacy of conscience” on contraception, I say, “Rubbish.”  The vast majority of “thinking” on both sides consists of Minimum Daily Adult Requirement notions that Catholics should approach Magisterial teaching with the sentiment, “What’s the absolute bare minimum of adherence I can get away with?”  I think the healthy approach is docility.

So, *can* somebody disagree about war and capital punishment?  Sure.  They can also disagree with Humanae Vitae, which also is not dogmatic.  But are they well advised to?  I think not.  The stakes with Just War, as with Humanae Vitae, are very high.  For another name for unjust war is “mass murder”.  Saying “It felt right at the time” will be of dubious value if due diligence was not done and a really serious attempt to engage the Church’s guidance was brushed aside with “Hey!  I’m solid on abortion, so dissent on contraception or just war is not that big a deal”.

Mark, thanks for that last comment. That does clarify your view. I agree with most of what you said, but disagree vehemently that disagreeing with a pope’s judgment that a particular war does not meet the criteria for just war is comparable to disagreeing with the pope’s judgment in HV, at least when it comes to the essential principle at stake, the moral question of contraception. HV is not a pope’s prudential judgment. It is a statement of the infallible teaching of the ordinary magisterium that had been held at all places and all times. It is also a reiteration of the infallible declarations of the extraordinary magisterium at Vatican II. I guess I could allow that perhaps the application of those principles to the combined oral contraceptive is less well defined and understood, but there doesn’t seem to be much of a movement of cafeteria catholics that is OK with the pill but not with more literal forms of contraception. The camps today seem to be: contraception is ok v. contraception is not ok. And that contraception is not OK is knowable through the natural law and is a part of the infallible teaching of Holy Church.

Really?  You would think that with conservatives being maximalists on the death penalty there would have been more than 41 people executed in the country this year.

And would you like to see that number go up?  If not, why are you siding with death penalty maximalists against the Church’s call for minimalism?

Mark, sentencing only 2% out of a 100 convicted capital offenders to loose their life for what they did is “minimalist” enforcement.

Fun with statistics.  Please stop playing games.  Death penalty maximalism does not mean “Sentence people to death for shoplifting and jaywalking”.  It means “Kill as many people as possible who can be sentenced to death under US law.”  In short, “Execute the entire 2%, and maybe make it 3% if we can squeeze some more onto the gallows.”

Why just a few days ago, our friend Larry was right in these comboxes, agreeing with your friend Dudley Sharpe that we need to execute as many people as we can under US law, and even suggesting colorful ideas like executions at halftime and condemning “patriotards” for their opposition to sharia, with its enlightened view of the need to execute gays.

Oddly, you (and Dudley) fell strangely silent about Larry’s novel views on crime and punishment.  The real danger (as your vocalisms and silence made clear) was not maximalists like Larry, whom you never opposed, but minimalists like the bishops, whom you weirdly suggest are opposed to the death penalty as part of some strategy to support abortion.

So yeah.  There is such a thing as death penalty maximalism and it is used in order to heap contempt and suspicion on the Magisterium as “liberal” (i.e., heretical).

There may indeed be faith-filled and faith-first reasons to disagree on the proper circumstances to apply the death penalty, wage just war, or even which interrogation methods are acceptable. There have been serious disagreements even between canonized saints, from Peter and Paul to now.  Mark most emphatically did not miss the point that Brian brought up. If you are disagreeing from a perspective informed by a well-formed faith, he’s not talking about you.

I was an atheist, an agnostic, an Anglican and seriously tried Eastern religions, before I was a Catholic. I was a pro-abortion liberal, too,  before I was a conservative. When you’ve lived a position, you can see it more clearly in others, and I can attest that there is a line in the cafeteria on the Right.

That’s why I emphasize ‘well-formed’ faith. When one’s only contact with the faith is an hour a week, and the rest of the time one’s immersed in secular political opinion, the chance that one’s first reaction to any given issue is going to be political rather than faith-based, is going to be higher.

Kevin:

I can settle for that.  I would merely add that the tergiversation on the Pelvic Left in order to look for loopholes and excuses for “primacy of conscience” about contraception reminds me of nothing so much as the tergiversation on the Right in the search for loopholes and excuses for why torturing and even killing somebody with hypothermia, suffocation, and simulated drowning are matters of “prudential judgment” and not self-evidently contrary to the natural law.  The preferred method is to kill the evil by a euphemism.  So “child murder” becomes known by the more clinical-sounding name “abortion” and “torture” is rebranded “enhanced interrogation”.  Then shades and degrees are invoked: “Are you telling me that a single cell is a *person*?”  “Are you seriously suggesting that sleep deprivation is torture?”  Pay no attention to the baby with the scissors in the brain.  Ignore that guy whom our own Defense Department calls a murder victim.  Our ideological commitments require that we excuse it and excuse the perp from punishment.

As a friend of mine once wryly said, “There is no such thing as an unanswerable argument”—at least, not to somebody in the grip of a need to justify his ideological commitments.  Meanwhile, the Church goes on saying that you can’t murder and torture—and people who uphold both teachings are reliably denounced as both neanderthal prolife zealots and friends of terrorists who hate America.  Fun!

The heart of the issue is this:  Anyone who does not give the same moral weight to the War, the Death Penalty and Torture as they do to things that ARE inarguably INTRINSIC EVIL (abortion, FSCR, cloning, euthanasia, homosexual unions,) Mark Shea labels as “people who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith”

It’s insulting, and it’s wrong.

Just because Mark Shea believes that War, the Death Penalty and Torture are intrinsically evil, does make it so, always and everywhere.  There are theologians on both sides of the fence on these issues.

I certainly do not like war.  But I believe in a countries right to defend itself.  I do not ever wish for someone to be executed.  It seems to me to shortchange a criminal the time it might take him to reconcile with God.  No one LIKES torture (well, at least those without serious mental illness!)  However, it seems to me that while murder is evil, but with the double effect, if someone is attacking you, and you fire a shot to stop them, killing them as a consequence, then it was legitimate self defense.  The purpose was not to kill, but to protect.  Doesn’t the same hold true with water boarding Kahlek Shake Mohammad?  The PURPOSE wasn’t to harm him; it was to SAVE thousands of innocent lives (which it did.)
So, while the theologians work all this out, Mark cannot say “you have to give these evils the same weight as the intrinsic evils, or you are a conservative before you are a Catholic.”

Here are some quotes and links to people who have as much authority as Mark Shea, and some who have more…

On forming your conscience and voting your conscience “The candidates have to be evaluated in the sober and pure light of truth. Your conscience must be formed to the objective norm of that truth, which is Church teaching in faith and morals. Since a physician needs to be concerned with what’s sick, let’s get right to the point. It is not morally possible for any Catholic to support abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell research, human cloning, or same-sex marriage. There are no ways around this, no justifications whatever. Why? For the simple reason that the Church holds these things to be intrinsically evil.
They are evil in themselves, and no circumstances or subjective conditions can ever change that. They are not to be confused with such things as the death penalty and legitimate self-defense, which are not intrinsically evil, and which governments can, and often must, make use of. While the conditions for applying such unfortunate measures as the death penalty and waging war may be open to debate, they are not things evil in themselves, always and everywhere.”  Fr. John Corapi, SOLT

http://www.toofewwitnesses.com/index_files/pdf/Fr Corapi.pdf

Torture: “Different churchmen would probably answer the hard case questions differently, some reflexibly shying away from any use of significant physical or psychological pressure, and others holding that the need to prevent an imminent terrorist attack trumps any right a terrorist might otherwise have not to have pain inflicted on him, so that applying physical pressure in such cases might not count as the sin of torture.”
“I have briefly chatted with Mark [Shea] about the matter, and my impression is that his position is within the permitted range of Catholic moral thought on this, though his is not the only position within the permitted range of Catholic moral thought.”  Jimmy Akin

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/10/doubts_about_to.html

War: “Q: What would you say to Catholics in this country who read and hear what the pope has to say—that attacking Iraq would not be in the just war tradition, that’s it wrong. He opposes it.

A: Well, in fact, the pope has not said that. The pope has said that he hopes that every possible nonmilitary measure will be used. The U.S. bishops have said that they are not clear in their own minds that this would satisfy the conditions of the just war tradition. And to them I would say the catechism of the Catholic Church, in the section on the just war tradition, after listing the traditional criteria says quite explicitly the moral judgment on these matters is left to the prudence of statesmen. It’s not the business of Church leaders to make the call. It’s the business of Church leaders to clarify the principles, to teach the principles, to make sure that those principles are present in the public debate. But Catholic teaching says that this is a tradition for statesmen and they have to make the call, because they are the only ones with the full information necessary to make the call and they are the ones who have assumed the burden of moral choice here.” George Weigel, a Senior Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Catholic Theologian

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week619/weigel.html

Just because Mark Shea believes that War, the Death Penalty and Torture are intrinsically evil, does make it so, always and everywhere.

Mark doesn’t believe that War or the Death penalty are intrinsically evil.  Mark believes what the Church teaches, that there is such a thing as Just War and that it is possible to apply the death penalty under rare circumstances.

As to torture, it is Holy Church, not me, that says it is intrinsically and gravely evil (Veritatis Splendor 80).  And yes, an intrinsically evil act *is* wrong always and everywhere.  If you dissent from this, you are, in fact putting a human commitment to an ideology ahead of the Church’s teaching.

Which was my point.

Now the problem for me is that under the “No True Scotsman” logic of the article that started this thread, I have to make a choice.  Either Kathy’s proclamation that torture is okay sometimes is, in fact, not representative of what the majority of Catholic conservatives say (i.e., she’s just a combox “crazy” as Pat put it).  Or else it’s true that there are Catholics who dissent from the clear teaching of the Church when it inconveniences their ideology.  Given that polls show 57% of Catholics agree with Kathy that torture is okay sometimes, I have to conclude that the article I wrote which prompted Pat to write is, in fact, reflecting reality.  The cafeteria is open on the Right as well as the Left.

Quick follow up point:  The citation of Jimmy Akin’s post does not really help you, Kathy.  Your point is that torture is okay sometimes (a position directly contrary to the teaching of Holy Church).  *Jimmy’s* argument is that sometimes something that *seems* to be torture may not, in fact, be torture.  I disagree with his calculus, but that is irrelevant here.  The point is, he is not attempting that same argument you are.  You are attempting to say the Church is wrong to condemn torture as intrinsically evil, always and everywhere.  Jimmy is saying that there are some acts which the Church might not condemn because they aren’t torture.

“Really?  You would think that with conservatives being maximalists on the death penalty there would have been more than 41 people executed in the country this year.

And would you like to see that number go up?  If not, why are you siding with death penalty maximalists against the Church’s call for minimalism?”

I was responding to your baseless claim that conservatives in the US are maximalists.

You are attempting to say the Church is wrong to condemn torture as intrinsically evil, always and everywhere.  Jimmy is saying that there are some acts which the Church might not condemn because they aren’t torture

No, Mark I’m “attempting” to say exactley what I said.  I paraphrased what Jimmy said.  The theologians are not in agreement yet as to “what” constitues torture.

You might think YOU get to define torture, but there are those higher up than you who disagree.

And, Jimmy Aiken isn’t the only one who has said it.

So, since you called me a “combox crazy” does that make Jimmy Aiken, George Weigel, and Fr. John Corapi “crazy” too?

By the way, just for the entertainment value, I can’t resist pointing out that while people here are all worked up about my alleged hatred of Bush and conservatives, over on this article, I am now being excoriated as a Bush whitewashers and a conservative who is making excuses for Empire and unjust war.  Always fun to be on the outs with both the “Obama is Hitler!” and “Bush is Hitler!” crowds.

“The heart of the issue is this:  Anyone who does not give the same moral weight to the War, the Death Penalty and Torture as they do to things that ARE inarguably INTRINSIC EVIL (abortion, FSCR, cloning, euthanasia, homosexual unions,) Mark Shea labels as “people who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith”

“So, while the theologians work all this out, Mark cannot say “you have to give these evils the same weight as the intrinsic evils, or you are a conservative before you are a Catholic.”

Dear Lord, Kathy, Mark never said that. He has been saying, over and over, exactly what you go on to say in your quotes of other authorities.

If you come by your opinions through your FAITH, he has no problem with you. IF you put your politics before your faith—that is, you hold a political opinion first, and disregard Magisterial teachings that disagree with your non-negotiable political opinion, that’s when he has a problem with you.

“As to torture, it is Holy Church, not me, that says it is intrinsically and gravely evil (Veritatis Splendor 80).  And yes, an intrinsically evil act *is* wrong always and everywhere.”

Have you ever tried to address Cardinal Dulles’ interpretation of the significance (or lack thereof) of Veritatis Splendor 80?

” (such as torture, the prohibition against which “may never be contravened” according to the Pope)”

You realize that this statement was made in an address to prison chaplains?

” Mark most emphatically did not miss the point that Brian brought up. If you are disagreeing from a perspective informed by a well-formed faith, he’s not talking about you.”

The problem is, Mark takes the position that if you disagree with him on these prudential issues, your perspective cannot possibly have been informed by a well-formed faith.

Kathy:

I paraphrased what Jimmy said.

No.  You didn’t.

You wrote: “Just because Mark Shea believes ... Torture [is] intrinsically evil, does [not] make it so, always and everywhere.”

Yes.  It does.  Torture *is* intrinsically evil according to Veritatis Splendor 80.  And that means it is wrong always and everywhere.  Your statement had nothing to do with defining torture.  It was a flat statement that torture qua torture is fine sometimes and therefore that the Church is wrong to condemn it as intrinsically immoral.  You didn’t say, “Not everything Shea thinks is torture is torture.”  You said “Torture is not always wrong.”  Till you face that fact, you are simply muddying the water.

As to my definitions of torture, I’ve generally been fairly minimalist: cold cells, suffocation, simulated drowning.  I’ve been abundantly clear that there are gray areas and that not all coercion constitutes torture.  But, as I say, when somebody dies, it was torture.  Your argument boils down to, “It worked” (at least according to the Administration that authorized the torture though the facts are otherwise).  In short, you are saying “The ends justify the means” which is another way of saying “The Church is wrong to call torture intrinsically immoral” (since “intrinsically immoral” mean “there is no conceivable justification for it even if it “works” just as, even though murder sometimes “works” in disposing of a problem, it cannot be justified).

So, just to re-state the facts: Jimmy is dealing with the question “What is torture?” You are not.  You are saying “Just because Mark Shea believes ... Torture [is] intrinsically evil, does [not] make it so, always and everywhere.”

That, of course, in addition to falsely alleging that I believe war and the death penalty to be intrinsically immoral.  I do not.  I do however, think that bearing false witness is immoral.  Do you?  If so, I expect you to retract the claim that I think war and the death penalty to be intrinsically immoral and I trust you will do so.

The problem is, Mark takes the position that if you disagree with him on these prudential issues, your perspective cannot possibly have been informed by a well-formed faith.

Could you document that?

So, since you called me a “combox crazy” does that make Jimmy Aiken, George Weigel, and Fr. John Corapi “crazy” too?

I didn’t call you a combox crazy.  It was Pat who was insisting that No True Conservative allows his ideological commitments to trump the Church’s teaching and that people who do so are unrepresentative combox crazies.  I was, in your defense, saying that you are not crazy but quite representative of polling date which shows that 57% of American Catholics are quite ready, willing and able to say that torture is not intrinisically evil and can be employed sometimes.

Mark, I’d go easy on Kathy on the torture question. My guess is that if you asked her what she means by “torture,” her definition would be something that you wouldn’t consider intrinsically evil. I believe I once read that in past centuries people would use the word “torture” to describe any sort of unpleasantness inflicted for a variety of reasons, some licit and some illicit. In our day, the definition seems to have taken on a more normative sense, to describe all such acts that are intrinsically immoral, which would make the question, “what things are torture and what things aren’t” relevant instead of the question, “what tortures are acceptable?”

Dancingcrane,

How can people read the same things, and come away with such different views?

Mark said: To be sure, I think there are non-negotiables beyond abortion (such as torture, the prohibition against which “may never be contravened” according to the Pope).  And the fact that I run into so many Catholics who labor to say that the prohibition *can* be ignored is, indeed, sufficient evidence for me that the cafeteria is open on the Right as on the Left. 
(Abortion and Torture carry the same weight.)

Jimmy said: Different churchmen would probably answer the hard case questions differently, some reflexibly shying away from any use of significant physical or psychological pressure, and others holding that the need to prevent an imminent terrorist attack trumps any right a terrorist might otherwise have not to have pain inflicted on him, so that applying physical pressure in such cases might not count as the sin of torture.”
(Abortion = always intrinsic evil, “Sin of Torture” may not apply.)

Do you see the difference in what they are saying?

Mark, I’d go easy on Kathy on the torture question. My guess is that if you asked her what she means by “torture,” her definition would be something that you wouldn’t consider intrinsically evil.

It’s odd to hear the prisoner in the dock being exhorted to go easy on the prosecuting attorney.  She’s made two blatantly false claims about me and has, in addition to this, recklessly declared that “torture” (period.  full stop.  no qualifications) is fine sometimes and that I am “insulting” for saying otherwise.  In short, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about and she is providing fine confirmation of my original point.  If she wishes to shift the discussion to the hoary question of defining torture, that’s fine.  But my entire point is that she was not doing so in her allegation against me.  She was complaining that I was insulting conservatives merely by saying (with Holy Church) that torture is intrinsically immoral.

Which, again, was precisely my point about ideology trumping Church teaching.

(Abortion and Torture carry the same weight.)

If by “carry the same weight”  you mean “Are committed with the same frequency” then obviously this is false.  If you mean “Will both send you to hell if you approve of them” then yes, they carry the same weight.

As to the rest, you continue to dodge the point.  Your initial statement was not about defining torture.  It was about saying that torture (period. full stop.  no definition offered) is not intrinsically immoral (and that the Church is therefore wrong to say it is.  Until you admit that, you are blowing smoke.  And you still have not retracted the falsehood that I believe war and the death penalty to be intrinsically immoral.

“The problem is, Mark takes the position that if you disagree with him on these prudential issues, your perspective cannot possibly have been informed by a well-formed faith.

Could you document that?”

Yes.  The article you link to above, and anything else you have written on this topic.

” I do however, think that bearing false witness is immoral.  Do you?  If so, I expect you to retract the claim that I think war and the death penalty to be intrinsically immoral and I trust you will do so.”

Interesting coming from a man who claims that the Pro-Life members of the GOP are phonies who don’t really care about the issue and just use it to get elected.

Have you ever tried to address Cardinal Dulles’ interpretation of the significance (or lack thereof) of Veritatis Splendor 80?

Probably. Can’t remember where or when though.  I know that he and Fr. Harrison are the go to guys for people dedicated to making sure that the obvious teaching of the Church concerning torture can be rationalized away with loopholes, redefinitions and excuses.  Funnily enough, nobody does this in order to read the book of Judges as a rationale for the other intrinsic evil of genocide.  But since ideological committment necessitate excuses for the grave sin of torture, people *do* love to use the development of doctrine with respect to slavery as a rationale for excusing torture.  As for me, I think the goal of Catholics is docility to the teaching, not the perpetual search for loopholes.  So this works as well as anything for me.

You realize that this statement was made in an address to prison chaplains?

Ah!  Good point.  The temptation to torture inmates is especially strong with prison chaplains and therefore is only directed at them.  It cannot possibly have any application to the use of torture by our nation, which was much in the news at the time the Pope spoke.  His remarks, of course, never constitute a quiet commentary on larger matters in the news.  So “Never” meant “sometimes, if you are American and feel you have good reason.”  Clearly, he real target was those damned torturing chaplains.

Interesting coming from a man who claims that the Pro-Life members of the GOP are phonies who don’t really care about the issue and just use it to get elected.

I wouldn’t say all are.  But clearly, the majority of the GOP leadership don’t care.  The proof is in the pudding.  30 years.  Sub-Carthaginian laws, even when they owned the executive and legislative branches and found the time and energy to push through a disastrous war of choice (which really *did* interest and engage them, so they got the job done).  Show me the money.

Yes.  The article you link to above, and anything else you have written on this topic.

Sorry.  Too vague.  Quotes please, or I will take your reply as a dodge and ignore you from here on in as disingenuous just as I am going to start ignoring Kathy as disingenuous if she doesn’t retract and apologize for her documentably false claim that I think war and the death penalty to be intrinsically immoral.

I’ve got work to get done, so I’ll check back in later (assuming people seriously address my points above about bearing false witness).  If they don’t, then I’ll probably be on my way and let my calumniators have the last word.

Mark,

Left to pick my daughter up from basketball practice…

Apparently I have misunderstood your teachings on War and the death penalty.

Sorry.

Although, you have misunderstood what I am trying to say about “torture.”

I do believe you are splitting hairs.  I’m only saying that the “torture” issue is a gray one BECAUSE of the inability at this time to define it.  My example was water boarding. You then said about me “precisely my point about ideology trumping Church teaching.”  That is also a false accusation.

I am NOT a cafeteria Catholic as you like to label me.

We are talking about conservatives.  I vote conservative BECAUSE I am a CATHOLIC.  When Fr. John Corapi tells me I cannot vote for intrinsic evil…you’d better believe I don’t.

When Fr. Mitch Pacwa tells me you cannot equate the war in Iraq with abortion…I don’t!

The Bishops tell us that we must vote to limit evil.  If there are 2 candidates, one who supports abortion, and one who supports the war, I MUST in clear conscious vote against the intrinsic evil.  The war is not intrinsically evil, so the republican gets the vote.

To you that makes me a “cafeteria Catholic.”

That is what I find offensive.

Sorry.

Thanks.  I forgive you.

Although, you have misunderstood what I am trying to say about “torture.”

Whether I have misunderstood what you were *trying* to say, I have not misunderstood what you, in fact, said.  You tell me you were “trying to say” that “the “torture” issue is a gray one BECAUSE of the inability at this time to define it.”  Well and good.  That may have been what you were “trying to say”.  But the words that wound up on my screen (which is all I can read, since I cannot read your mind) were not anything like that, which is precisely why I pointed out the difference between what you, in fact, wrote and what Jimmy was arguing.  Instead of acknowledging that, you denied it and tried to put the blame back on me.  So while I thank you for retracting your false witness about my supposed views on war and the death penalty, I continue to point out that you are shifting your ground on torture.  If you want to say that you are no longer saying, as you initially did, that torture (period, full stop, no definition) is morally permissible sometimes, then I congratulate you for agreeing with the Church, which also reject that claim.  If you now assert that the quarrel is about what torture is, not whether it is intrinisically immoral, then you need to be clear about that.  But then, of course, you also need to be clear that I have never *ever* said people cannot seek to define torture.

What I have said is that *some* people seek to define it out of existence, out of a pre-conceived commitment to justifying support for the use of obvious torture such as cold cell, simulated drowning, and suffocating stress positions.  Of course, the Church does not (and never will) define each and every possible permutation of technique that constitutes torture, and some torture supporters imagine this means they are off the hook.  But of course, this makes as much sense as saying that since the Church does not specifically define suction aspiration as “abortion” we therefore can’t really know if it is intrinsically immoral.

As to the rest of your logic, I reiterate what I said about about “prudential” not meaning “I can do whatever I feel like”.  Saying that questions of war are prudential does not magically render an unjust war just.  If a war (like Iraq II) obviously fails just war teaching (as two pope and all the bishops in the world warned) then saying “opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world” is a dubious proposition.  Unless you can show that there is an extremely good reason to think two popes and all the bishops are *wrong* and war is morally right, the default position should be to oppose the war since support for unjust war is support for mass murder.

That’s why I say that I will not function on the “30% less evil than the other leading brand” logic which has proven to deliver, not reduction in abortion, but evil.

“I wouldn’t say all are.  But clearly, the majority of the GOP leadership don’t care.  The proof is in the pudding.  30 years.  Sub-Carthaginian laws, even when they owned the executive and legislative branches and found the time and energy to push through a disastrous war of choice (which really *did* interest and engage them, so they got the job done).  Show me the money.”

What should they have done that they have not done?  Until Roe, Doe and Casey are overturned, there is not much that can be done.  Which is why I take such exception to your assertion that people shouldn’t vote for the GOP because of Iraq, torture, and the death penalty, the same way they should not vote for the Democrats because of abortion.  If Obama gets a second term with 50 Democratic Senators, we won’t have to concern ourselves with overturning those cases, because we will be too busy trying to prevent every restriction on abortion—partial birth, parental notification, waiting periods, etc.—from being overturned.  Obama getting to appoint five or six members of the Supreme Court is a scenario that anyone who considers themselves Pro-Life should dread.

“Yes.  The article you link to above, and anything else you have written on this topic.

Sorry.  Too vague.”

Just read the article you linked to.  You allow that, theoretically, a Catholic could support the Iraq War, but then go on to imply that such an individual would basically have to be an idiot or a fraud.

Compare what you wrote to the 2004 Ratzinger letter and the 2005 interview he gave to Zenit on the war.  Catholics could reasonably reach a conclusion in conflict with that held by him and JPII.  There is no attack on the intelligence or sincerity of those Catholics.

Compare what you write to the 2004 Ratzinger letter

Just read the article you linked to.

Okey doke.  So, a refusal to quote me, coupled with your putting words in my mouth.  That clarifies things.  Alrighty then.  I’m done attempting a conversation with you.

“As to the rest of your logic, I reiterate what I said about about “prudential” not meaning “I can do whatever I feel like”.  Saying that questions of war are prudential does not magically render an unjust war just.  If a war (like Iraq II) obviously fails just war teaching (as two pope and all the bishops in the world warned) then saying “opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world” is a dubious proposition.  Unless you can show that there is an extremely good reason to think two popes and all the bishops are *wrong* and war is morally right, the default position should be to oppose the war since support for unjust war is support for mass murder.”

Just to save myself some time, here is a perfect example of what I am talking about.  Wouldn’t it be odd for Ratzinger to say Catholics could reach a conclusion in conflict with that reached by him and JPII if the war was “obviously” unjust?

“Just read the article you linked to.

Okey doke.  So, a refusal to quote me, coupled with your putting words in my mouth.  That clarifies things.  Alrighty then.  I’m done attempting a conversation with you.”

I quote your response to Kathy above a couple of posts down.

And nice evasion of my first point about the Supreme Court.

Mark,

Can you bring yourself to say that there are credible, sincere Catholic theologians of integrity that hold a different view than you hold on the War in Iraq, and on [please, do tell me what phrase I am supposed to put here…maybe the “yet to be determined definition of torture.?”]

That while they also hold faithfully to Magisterial teaching, their intellect, prayers, and discernment have taken them to different conclusions than the ones you hold?

The only theologian I have ever heard of who has attempted to make the case for torture is Fr. Brian Harrison.  Even he is reduced to saying that it *may* be that there is a razor thin loophole in the case of the extremely unlikely ticking time bomb.  That’s it.  That’s all.  He doesn’t, so far as I know, address the Definition Game.

As to the rest of the theological community, it’s pretty slim pickin’s trying to find *anybody* who comes to Harrison’s aid.  Nobody but shills for Bush torture policies in comboxes ever mentions his musings so far as I can tell.  He is *entirely* alone in the theological community, while the Church’s plain teaching on the need to treat prisoners humanely and the grave immorality of torture is clear and reiterated.  “Humanely” does not mean “inflict drowning”, just as it does not mean “freeze them to death” or “suffocate them”.  That we are even having this discussion is already proof that you are laboring very hard to avoid the obvious.

As to the justice of the war in Iraq, no doubt there are some theologians out there who might argue for it (assuming you consider, say, Michael Novak a “theologian”).  But so what?  Theologians are not the Magisterium, just as theologians like Richard McBrien are not the Magisterium when they dissent from the guidance of the Church on contraception.  Novak went to Rome and presented his sincere view on the War in Iraq.  The Pope rejected it.  His best theologian, a man named Joseph Ratzinger, likewise rejected it saying “Pre-emptive war is not in the Catechism”.  He is, of course, right.  So while Novak may be sincere, credible, and entitled to his own opinions, he is not entitled to his own facts.  And the fact, according to Pope Benedict, is that our pre-emptive war was “not in the Catechism” and therefore not just.  I think him right and Novak wrong.

I am pretty much new this   newspaper blog. This is very eyeopening dialouge. Something just doesn’t sit well with me though. Why was this article written by Mark Shea and put in a “orthodox"Catholic Newspaper?  Why so close to an election that will be historic,to stop this pro abortion Marxist administration? It is very troubling! I know George Sorros contributes lots of his money to so called Catholic organizations to promote is Marxist and Fabian socialism agenda within the Church to divide the Church.I don’t want think.. nah!  Maybe it is someone even more sinister than spooky old George.

Surprisingly, one need not be a Marxist or funded by George Soros to say that Catholic teaching is to be followed when it contradicts either liberal *or* conservative ideology.  It is a measure of the ideological derangement of some that “Be faithful to the Magisterium” somehow translates, in their hearing, to “Support Marxism and abortion!  All hail George Soros and Satan!”

Sheesh!

Mr. Shea I didn’t call you a Marxist or a Fabian socialist or for proabortion.
I refered to the Obama administration, George Sorros ,and Catholic and noncatholic organizations he gives money to, that. I did honestly have a fleeting thought on that happening in this case. But I just didn’t want to go there.  However, I do believe you are very wrong in your judgement of “conservative"Catholics and your beliefs on “social justice"issues like death penalty, “torture” and the war, which are not what the Catholic Church Teaches. I believe satan can use your article perhaps well intention but is still wrong , that is put in a “orthodox"catholic blog newspaper to further his agenda of the “culture of death”, (the non negotiables the Catholic Church Teaches we must be against),to an unsuspecting and naive Catholic readership.  Just please! Mark, stop writing this stuff in a National Catholic newspaper! If what I fear is happening.  Our country is at a cross roads and has been for a very long time.  This is ,I strongly believe the final chance or very close to it, to begin to change our country to the right moral values based on Catholic Teaching. Or, we are going to witness first hand the demonic wrath of Marxism and Fabian Socialism on this country. I am a wife and mother of six children and I have a God given duty to not only spiritually protect my family but physically protect them as well. I also took an oath to fight against foreign and domestic enemies of this country. So I will fight to my last breath to not let Marxism ,Communism or Socialism destroy them or this country. Even if it means correcting a well intention person such as you. I will pray for you ,God bless.

“Probably. Can’t remember where or when though.  I know that he and Fr. Harrison are the go to guys for people dedicated to making sure that the obvious teaching of the Church concerning torture can be rationalized away with loopholes, redefinitions and excuses.”

You probably haven’t, because his analysis destroys your theory.

“Ah!  Good point.  The temptation to torture inmates is especially strong with prison chaplains and therefore is only directed at them.  It cannot possibly have any application to the use of torture by our nation, which was much in the news at the time the Pope spoke.”

Sigh.  You don’t understand that the treatment of inmates in a prison (which is supposed to rehabilitate them) should be different than the treatment of KSM and two of his cronies?

And yes, B16 is a timid man, and would never directly address a controversial issue.

By the way, when B16 met with Bush, did B16 look like he was conversing with a war criminal?

“The only theologian I have ever heard of who has attempted to make the case for torture is Fr. Brian Harrison.  Even he is reduced to saying that it *may* be that there is a razor thin loophole in the case of the extremely unlikely ticking time bomb.  That’s it.  That’s all.  He doesn’t, so far as I know, address the Definition Game.”

What about your friend who also writes on this site?  What about Patrick Lee? 

“He is *entirely* alone in the theological community, while the Church’s plain teaching on the need to treat prisoners humanely and the grave immorality of torture is clear and reiterated.  “Humanely” does not mean “inflict drowning”, just as it does not mean “freeze them to death” or “suffocate them”.  That we are even having this discussion is already proof that you are laboring very hard to avoid the obvious.”

Ah yes, a Shea classic.  Argue that KSM and his two accomplices could be waterboarded and you also have to believe that negligent homicide is acceptable.  Do you get a discount by buying strawmen in bulk quantities?

“And the fact, according to Pope Benedict, is that our pre-emptive war was “not in the Catechism” and therefore not just.  I think him right and Novak wrong.”

Right, but if Novak and I were wrong (which we were not) that still doesn’t make us cafeteria Catholics.  I know that angers you, but you will just have to get over it.

So, Mark, the question was…Can you bring yourself to say that there are credible, sincere Catholic theologians of integrity that hold a different view than you hold on the War in Iraq, and on [please, do tell me what phrase I am supposed to put here…maybe the “yet to be determined definition of torture.?”]
That while they also hold faithfully to Magisterial teaching, their intellect, prayers, and discernment have taken them to different conclusions than the ones you have?
Your answer (if I can paraphrase you) is yes…but. 
Then you go on to list why you disagree with them.)I understand that you think they are wrong.  Got it.
My point is this – a conservative Catholic such as myself can follow the guidance of these credible, sincere theologians and apologists that believe, for example, the war is just. (You don’t agree with the Fr. Corapi’s, Michael Novacks, George Weigles, and Fr. Richard John Newhouse’s of the world.  Got it.)  BUT, we can follow what they have to say, and form our consciences to vote for a candidate that opposes abortion, but supports the war.  (We have limited the very evil our good Bishops have asked us to limit.)
I can cast that vote because I HAVE formed my consciences, and I know that the 5 intrinsic evils of our day carry more moral weight, than the other issues. (Apples to oranges.)
That does not make me someone who “puts my conservative ideology before my faith.”  Just the opposite.

“Surprisingly, one need not be a Marxist or funded by George Soros to say that Catholic teaching is to be followed when it contradicts either liberal *or* conservative ideology.  It is a measure of the ideological derangement of some that “Be faithful to the Magisterium” somehow translates, in their hearing, to “Support Marxism and abortion!  All hail George Soros and Satan!”

But with regard to conservative “ideology” you are alleging a direct conflict with the Magisterium that does not exist.

You are certainly not trying to get more people to vote for Democrats, but you are trying to get less people to vote for Republicans based on a moral equivalency that does not exist.

If enough people think like you, Obama will get his Democratic Senate and another term.  Once he fills five or six seats, EVERY restriction on abortion will be ruled unconstitutional.  If you do not think the number of abortions will increase dramatically, you are a fool.

“And the fact, according to Pope Benedict, is that our pre-emptive war was “not in the Catechism” and therefore not just.  I think him right and Novak wrong.

B16 has never declared that the War in Iraq was so obviously unjust that no Catholic could believe it was just and remain in good standing with the Church.  He has actually said the exact opposite.  On at least two occasions.  Is he a cafeteria Catholic as well?

“So this works as well as anything for me.”

All I learned from reading this is that Morning Minion doesn’t understand Cardinal Dulles’ article.  Do you also agree with him that Catholics who do not agree with you on the torture issue should be denied Communion?

““I wouldn’t say all are.  But clearly, the majority of the GOP leadership don’t care.”

Who are these leaders of the GOP who don’t actually care about abortion.  Name names.

@Brain English

“Argue that KSM and his two accomplices could be waterboarded and you also have to believe that negligent homicide is acceptable.”

You nailed it, Brian.  And in just one sentence.  Well done! 

Shea said “And the fact, according to Pope Benedict, is that our pre-emptive war was “not in the Catechism” and therefore not just.

You said…B16 has never declared that the War in Iraq was so obviously unjust that no Catholic could believe it was just and remain in good standing with the Church.  He has actually said the exact opposite.  On at least two occasions.  Is he a cafeteria Catholic as well?

In addition to your reply, it should be noted that after B16 said ” pre-emptive war is not in the Catechism,” his very next sentence to follow, however, was “One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war.”

Actually, Marty, what he said was very different from your Pravda-like redaction:

“All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me…” [Military intervention] “has no moral justification” (September 20, interview on the Italian national news program. (See, http://www.comunioneliberazione.org/articoli/eng/1/nowar.html.)
The United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision. It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power.

The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save. The U.N. can be criticized from several points of view, but it is the instrument created after the war for the coordination - including moral - of politics.
The concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church. One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war, but it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these
possibilities. (Statements to the press by the Cardinal Ratzinger after receiving the 2002 Trieste Liberal Award. His statements were published in the Italian newspaper Avvenire. (See, http://www.coc.org/resources/articles/print.html?ID=278)”

This portrayal of Ratzinger as simply shrugging his shoulders and inviting warmongers to create their own truth in keeping with the dictatorship of relativism is one of the silliest and crudest falsehoods of the past decade.  He is quite definite about his conviction that there is no way Iraq II met the criteria for Just War.

@ Mark

You said “Actually, Marty, what he said was very different from your Pravda-like redaction:”  First, what does “Pravda-like” mean?

You supplied one sentance as an “end all” qualifying statement.  I simply put the next sentance next to it.  You don’t deny he said it.

Mark, you wrote:

“This portrayal of Ratzinger as simply shrugging his shoulders and inviting warmongers to create their own truth in keeping with the dictatorship of relativism is one of the silliest and crudest falsehoods of the past decade.”

If a real person has suggested that the pope invites “warmongers to create their own truth” I don’t think he’s worth responding to. I doubt that anyone actually believes this is the pope’s position.

To cut to the chase, would you say that Weigel, Novak, and/or Fr. Neuhaus were “cafeteria Catholics” because of their support for the war?

Kevin:

Are you asking me to pass judgment on somebody?  Or are you asking me to critique an intellectual position?  Cuz the former is a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” deal.  If I say “I’m not supposed to pass judgement on people” then I’m refusing to answer the question.  If I do, then I’m being judgemental.  Perhaps you could find some other way of phrasing the question that does not demand I set myself up as judge, jury and executioner?

Mark,

Assuming that the public statements of these gentlemen are true (that is, that they were trying to follow the Church’s principles to the best of their ability), would you still say that because the war was “obviously” unjust, these men were either stupid or putting their politics ahead of their faith? That is, taking them at their word, is it possible that they could be truly faithful, truly orthodox sons of the Church and believe that, at the time we went to war in Iraq, it met the criteria for a just war?

@Mark

Ok, so I read the article you linked to.  Now I’ll link a couple, with snippets above the link.

Vatican Foreign Policy and the Bush Administration
by Sandro Magister
“Studi Cattolici”, July/August, 2003

Then came Sept. 11, 2001, to change the landscape. Two days after the destruction of the Twin Towers, Ambassador Nicholson met John Paul II at Castel Gandolfo. This is how he described the encounter in a book he wrote several months later: “After much discussion and even a prayer together, the pope said he believed that the events of Sept. 11 were indeed an attack not just on the United States, but on all of mankind, and we were justified in taking defensive action. He asked me only to appeal for him to President Bush that the United States adhere to the high standards of justice for which our country had become known.”

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/6963?eng=y

Fr. Richard Neuhaus
Zenit,  MARCH 10, 2003
As St. Thomas Aquinas and other teachers of the just war tradition make clear, war may sometimes be a moral duty in order to overturn injustice and protect the innocent. The just cause in this case is the disarmament of Iraq, a cause consistently affirmed by the Holy Father and reinforced by 17 resolutions of the Security Council.

Frequent reference to preventive or pre-emptive use of military force, and even to “wars of choice,” have only confused the present discussion.

War, if it is just, is not an option chosen but a duty imposed. In the present circumstance, military action against Iraq by a coalition of the willing is in response to Iraq’s aggression; first against Kuwait, then in defiance of the terms of surrender demanding its disarmament, then in support of, if not direct participation in, acts of terrorism.

This is joined to its brutal aggression against its own citizens, and its possession of weapons of mass destruction which it can use or permit others to use for further aggression.

To wait until the worst happens is to wait too long, and leaders guilty of such negligence would rightly be held morally accountable.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0627.html

This could go on for days, you linking your sources and why they are best.  Me linking my sources and why they are best, yada, yada, yada.

Whether or not the war in Iraq is just, is a topic for another discussion.  We are NOT going to solve it here, today.
Kathy’s point is well taken.  This thread is about how conservatives vote.  Good Catholics can support the war.  Good Catholics cannot support abortion.

Kevin:

Assuming that the public statements of these gentlemen are true (that is, that they were trying to follow the Church’s principles to the best of their ability), would you still say that because the war was “obviously” unjust,

It is Ratzinger, not me, who says the war was obviously unjust:

“the conclusion seems obvious to me…” [Military intervention] “has no moral justification”

these men were either stupid or putting their politics ahead of their faith? That is, taking them at their word, is it possible that they could be truly faithful, truly orthodox sons of the Church and believe that, at the time we went to war in Iraq, it met the criteria for a just war?

And I repeat: you appear to be asking me to pass judgement on these men by taking some position on their interior disposition, freedom or knowledge.  I can’t do that, because I have no idea of the state of their souls.  I *can* say that I agree with Ratzinger that it is indeed obvious that military intervention had no moral justification and that these men were objectively wrong to say that it did.  How *culpable* they were for being objectively wrong is not something I can speak to.  I’m not their Judge.

“This portrayal of Ratzinger as simply shrugging his shoulders and inviting warmongers to create their own truth in keeping with the dictatorship of relativism is one of the silliest and crudest falsehoods of the past decade.  He is quite definite about his conviction that there is no way Iraq II met the criteria for Just War.”

Your first sentence is not a description of anything I have seen expressed on this board.  Your second sentence is simply wrong.  Read the 2004 letter and the 2005 Zenit interview. I do not see why you refuse to acknowledge this, other than you feel it is very important to call conservative Catholics cafeteria Catholics.

” If I do, then I’m being judgemental.  Perhaps you could find some other way of phrasing the question that does not demand I set myself up as judge, jury and executioner?”

So its okay for you to be judgmental about conservative Catholics in general who supported the War in Iraq, but not particular conservative Catholics who supported the war?

“I *can* say that I agree with Ratzinger that it is indeed obvious that military intervention had no moral justification and that these men were objectively wrong to say that it did.  How *culpable* they were for being objectively wrong is not something I can speak to.  I’m not their Judge.”

But back to the actual question: “Do you consider them cafeteria Catholics?”  Not are they going to Hell?  Not is God mad at them?  Simply, do you consider them cafeteria Catholics, a label which you seem to have no reluctance applying to other Catholics who supported the war.

Mark,

Hmm… “it seems obvious to me” is a bit more subjective than saying “it is obvious that the war is unjust.” But, it’s probably not going to get us anywhere to try to parse his use of the (Italian-equivalent?) word “obvious” here. For the sake of argument, let’s say that Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope JPII did think that the war was (objectively) obviously unjust. Would it be fair for faithful Catholics to consider Catholics like Weigel, Novak, and Fr. Neuhaus public dissenters from the teaching of the Church, or to label either these particular Catholics or Catholics in general who believed it met the criteria for a just war, “cafeteria Catholics”?

Kevin:

This is getting fairly hair-splitting.  The teaching of the Church is Just War doctrine.  The *guidance of the Magisterium* was that Just War doctrine, applied to the specific claims of US in launching our war of choice was that, in the almost completely unanimous opinion of the bishops, the war came nowhere near satisfying the criteria of Just War Doctrine.  Weigel, Neuhaus, and Novak clearly dissented, not from Just War Teaching per se, but from the bishops’ reading of it.  This was, I think, foolish, disastrous and wrong, but not the same sort of dissent as, for instance, simply saying “The hell with Just War Teaching” (as, in fact, some of our more zealous comboxers were saying at the time). 

So it depends on what you mean by “dissent”.  Generally, people seem to mean “dissent from some essential article of faith and morals”.  If that’s what you mean, then no, they didn’t simply categorically reject the very notion of Just War doctrine.  They paid it lip service.  However, if by “dissent” you mean “Do I think Novak gave a modestly credible read of JWD when he went to Rome to try to get JPII and Ratzinger on board with our Grand End to Evil project?” then no, he didn’t.  He, Weigel, and Neuhaus clearly and obviously dissented from JPII and the bishops of the world and said that JWD supported our launching of pre-emptive war.  If “cafeteria Catholicism” consist of the Minimum Daily Adult Requirement notion that you only have to agree with the Church’s guidance on the absolute bare minimum and can blow off the unanimous guidance of bishops on faith and morals (even when it spells the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people), then no, they weren’t cafeteria Catholics.  If, on the other hand, you think (as I do) that the task of Catholics is to be docile to the guidance of the Magisterium and only ignore that guidance for extremely grave and well-proven reasons, then yeah, Weigel, Novak and Neuhaus behaved like cafeteria Catholics.  How culpable they are for that behavior I can’t say.

Of course, Weigel has demonstrated elsewhere his eagerness to dissent from clear and obvious papal teaching.

” If, on the other hand, you think (as I do) that the task of Catholics is to be docile to the guidance of the Magisterium and only ignore that guidance for extremely grave and well-proven reasons, then yeah, Weigel, Novak and Neuhaus behaved like cafeteria Catholics.”

So in your mind, Pelosi, Kennedy, and Biden are lined up on the left side of the cafeteria, while Novak, Neuhaus and Weigel are lined up on the right?  Seriously?

Why just limit the cafeteria to Weigel, Fr. Newhaus, and Novak?  Here are some more Catholic commentators that you should slap your “cafeteria Catholic” label on.
Dan Darling, Robert P. George, Stephen Hayes, Deal Hudson, James Turner Johnston, Sandro Magister, Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., Russel Shaw, and Carl Olson.

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/

So in your mind, Pelosi, Kennedy, and Biden are lined up on the left side of the cafeteria, while Novak, Neuhaus and Weigel are lined up on the right?  Seriously?

And again, with your dishonest insistence on putting words in my mouth, you persuade me not to have anything further to do with attempts at communication with you.

Marty:

Clearly you are bent on arraigning me as a heretic who is not part of the conservative tribe and as one who needs to be isolated and shunned for disagreeing with your real magisterial authorities in the blogosphere and the world of neocon opinion-making.  Sorry to disappoint you for holding heretical opinions about a matter of prudential judgement.  I thought that was okay, but apparently it’s only okay when you do it.  Dissent from what some folks in American conservative blogdom think and you are revealed a shocking traitor.

Anyway, getting back outside the Bubble of conservative tribal pieties, I continue to think that two Popes and the unanimous agreement of the bishops of the world carries more weight than what a few conservative Catholic worthies happen to think.  So sue me.

This conversation has pretty much wound down to me and two or three people.  I don’t have much to add.  So have a good weekend.  I’m outta here.

“And again, with your dishonest insistence on putting words in my mouth, you persuade me not to have anything further to do with attempts at communication with you.”

Actually, I was simply asking you a question.  The real dishonesty here is you trying to avoid the clear meaning of your statements.

Please spare me your defense that you only said Weigel, Neuhaus and Novak “behaved like cafeteria Catholics”, not that they “were” cafeteria Catholics.

And what happened to your remark that the cafeteria line forms on the left and right?  Who is on the right side of the line if Weigel, Novak and Neuhaus (and I guess me) are not?

“Why just limit the cafeteria to Weigel, Fr. Newhaus, and Novak?  Here are some more Catholic commentators that you should slap your “cafeteria Catholic” label on.
Dan Darling, Robert P. George, Stephen Hayes, Deal Hudson, James Turner Johnston, Sandro Magister, Fr. James V. Schall, S.J., Russel Shaw, and Carl Olson.

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/justwar/”

Excellent point Marty.  Are any of the people listed above on the cafeteria line?  If not, why not?

Mark,

Sorry, but you can not be so thin skinned.  YOU are the one saying “anyone who votes for a candidate that supports the war is a “cafeteria Catholic,” and they put their “politics first, faith second.”

Then you try to say Marty is painting you as a *heretic* because he lists some people who support the war?

You are the one name calling, not Marty.

Just one more question, then I will leave you alone.  Is there any candidate that you actually can endorse?

Is there anyone out there that not only adheres to basic Catholic teaching, but also holds the same viewpoint that you have on the “prudential judgement” issues?

If so, can you please name them?

Kathy:

I’ve paid almost no attention to political candidates nationally since they don’t concern me in an off-year election.  We just got our voters guide here the other day for local races in Washington and I haven’t had a chance to look at it.

Well, thank you for engaging us in the discussion.  I can say that at least I feel I understand your position now better than before (even if we don’t agree with one another.)

God Bless

Thank you, Kathy.  God bless you too.

I have read this long list of comments and responses and have just one comment at this point.

There seems to be a mistaken impression that Mark Shea believes that anyone who disagrees with the non-dogmatic guidance of the Magisterium is a “cafeteria Catholic.” My impression was that he is skeptical that many such dissenters have a strong and serious justification for their position apart from their political ties and that those who prefer to follow such politics instead of the church, when the two disagree, are indeed cafeteria Catholics.

Am I wrong?

That’s about the size of it.  I agree, in theory, that somebody can have a strong argument against some prudential application of the Tradition that two popes and a unanimous concensus of bishops might hold.  But, with respect to Iraq II, I have yet to see anything remotely approaching an actual argument from pro-war Catholics that holds water.  And the appeal being make here by the likes of Marty is precisely the sort of groupthink I’m talking about.  Essentially the strategy is to reel off a list of names of luminaries and then say, “Are you seriously going to suggest that *they* are wrong?  That would identify you as an Outsider to this prestigious In Group!”  Not a word about their actual rationale for ignoring the rather obvious logic of the Magisterial teachers we call bishops. Just the sotto voce threat that dissent from the In Group will mark me as one of Them: an Outsider, a Liberal, etc. That’s because the In Group was, in this case, wrong.  The war didn’t come close to meeting Just War criteria—and time has only borne that out.  I’ll happily take my place outside the In Group with the Magisterium.

“I’ve paid almost no attention to political candidates nationally since they don’t concern me in an off-year election.  We just got our voters guide here the other day for local races in Washington and I haven’t had a chance to look at it.”

See, if you vote like us Catholic faithful conservatives, you wouldn’t have to look at a voters guide.

See, if you vote like us Catholic faithful conservatives, you wouldn’t have to look at a voters guide.

Huh?

“That’s about the size of it.”

The fuss makes me ponder the more precise meaning of the phrase “cafeteria Catholic.” Is it a person who rejects Catholic teaching, one who shrugs off Catholic authority, or both? Does the rejection have to be formal or can it be thoughtless? What role does ignorance play? Does it mean the person is outside of the Church in any meaningful way, such as heresy or excommunication?

Perhaps I’m giving the label undue attention, but its use certainly has sparked quite a backlash.

And to be exact, it is its application to politically conservative Catholics that sparked the outrage or confusion. I doubt it would have the same reaction when applied to politically liberal Catholics. But the shock implies to me that people don’t agree on what the label means.

Hugolino:

Yeah.  Pretty much.  The special boast of conservative Catholics has, for a couple of decades, been, “I thank you, O Lord that I am not like those liberal cafeteria Catholics.  I accept everything the Church teaches!”  However, once the Bush Administration co-opted large percentages of conservative Catholics into twisting themselves into pretzels to justify Bush torture policies, the fact is that conservatives who make excuses for it can no longer say, “Those awful liberals over there are cafeteria Catholics.”  Now Conservatives are, in fact, dissenting from the teaching of the Church on a matter of grave moral evil too.  Pointing that out is not a quick ticket to popularity among Conservatives, just as Democrats who dissent from the party line on abortion are not exactly welcomed into the commanding heights of power in their party either.

Posting contrarian arguments with the intent to stir up controversy and attract a surge of web traffic is called link-baiting.  When it is done on someone else’s blog it is called being a troll.  It is a common technique that many bloggers use to inflate their page hit and comment statistics and it is usually harmless fun.

However Mark’s posts sniping at conservatives so close to the election are far from harmless.  If he causes even one reader to conclude that both parties are equally unworthy of support and that reader stays away from the polls on election day then Mark Shea has done an evil thing.  The Democrats and Republicans are not Tweedledee and Tweedledum, especially not on Culture of Death issues and especially not this year.

Mark’s other posts are often so perceptive and moving.  I wish he could find a way to be content with that, at least until after the election.

I don’t get the impression that Mark Shea thinks both parties are equal choices, morally speaking (although he can speak for himself, I think it is clear what his stance is). I’m a registered Republican myself, and I do believe both parties are unworthy of support. However, I vote for the lesser of two evils, which is morally allowable.

@ Mark
Sorry to disappoint you for holding heretical opinions about a matter of prudential judgement.  I thought that was okay, but apparently it’s only okay when you do it. 

Funny, I was going to say the same thing to you (after I left the cafeteria, of course.)

Mr. Shea,  I’m shocked, no I’m not shocked!  With your “attitude” towards voting, which is against what the Church teaches we should have our Holy Father Pope BenedictXVI is against your “attitude” as well. No wonder this country has elected politicians that advance the “Culture of Death” and socialist “social justice” aka Marxisim policies all these years. No wonder Mr. Obama got into office and this country is facing the final nail in its coffin.  Yes, satan is using your article(s) and National Catholic Register to advance his death agenda. Mr. Shea ,you should be ashamed of yourself! National Catholic Register should be ashamed! Why worry about the “liberals” in the Church.  Heck, look at the Trojan Horse in these so called “orthodox” Catholic organizations and its followers. The Church in the USA is really in a big heep of a mess! Wake up fellow Catholics! Wake up !!!

Sorry it should have read “With your “attitude” towards voting which is against what the Church teaches ,even our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI is against your “attitude” as well.”

Suzanne, what in the world are you talking about? Yes, I believe in the existence of the Culture of Death and the longstanding rise of socialism in the policies of the U.S.A. I also believe in the existence of all the demons. But what attitude in particular are you condemning is inspired by Satan? It is morally permissible to vote third party if you feel neither of the two main parties represent right values. It is also morally permissible to vote for the lesser of two evils in an election because you feel a third party candidate is unviable. So what are you condemning?

And pardon my typos as well… although if you didn’t notice them, then ... um… nevermind. ;)

“He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of this country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man….The sum of all is, if we would most truly enjoy this gift of Heaven, let us become a virtuous people.”

—Founding father Samuel Adams

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
—Benjamin Franklin

Note: I’m not advocating violent revolution. But Franklin’s quote amused me and is a reminder not to put democracy upon any altar for veneration. (Yes, I know Franklin was personally not much of a role model.)

“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave and pure, it is because the people demand these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature…. If the next centennial does not find us a great nation ... it will be because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.”

—James Garfield, 20th U.S. president, 1877

Susanne:

The Church nowhere binds me to vote for a Republican.  If you think She does, and if you think that she teaches it is the work of Satan to say, “Be faithful to the Magisterium” then I suggest that you ask those who taught you the Catholic Faith to give you your money back.

Yes, I believe you can vote third party. I have done it myself. There is a good voting guide you can read that is put out by Catholic Answers, that explains Church Teaching on voting.  For the rest of your questions go back and read my previous comments. I am talking   about Mr. Shea “attitude” towards voting , his lack of educating himself on the canadiates and policies being voted for. Mr. Shea takes a very destructive attitude to this very important civil duty. People in Communist countries only dream of this right we have as US citizens.I find this disturbing, especially for a Catholic.

Mr.Shea,  You know darn well what I said! Mr.Shea ,Mr.Shea,please be an honest gentleman!
I remember buying one of your books or tapes (they were very good and I learned a lot) many years ago. Can you please refund me :)

Correct, Mark, she doesn’t. 

Tax laws (created by Democrat Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1959 in the Democrat controlled Senate) cause her to bite her lips.  But she does say there are five, that is 5, non-negotiables that are to be used in forming ones conscience.  They are abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research, cloning, and same-sex marriage.  The holy Catholic Church is universally opposed to all of them.  I don’t see your torture, or war among them.  Hmmmm.  I wonder what political party in America is most likely opposed to what the Church is opposed to?  I wonder what political party those who are opposed to the 5 non-negotiables are most inclined to belong to. 

It is difficult to face, isn’t it?  Almost unbearable to face if one is a member of the party that is soooooo concerned with the little people, the party that so many church-going Catholics and clergy feel a kinship to. It feels so good, that feeling of superiority to others, that feeling of caring for the poor and helpless.  It’s intoxicating.  So much so that those five, that’s 5, non-negotiables really don’t matter to the feeling one has of being for the little people. After all, 10,000 are killed in wars and the Republican Party supports wars.  Never mind the 52,000,000 innocent lives murdered in our country, murdered with the endorsement of so many Profession of Faith reciting, Lord’s Prayer praying, Holy Eucharist receiving, Sunday church-going Catholic Democrats. Feelings for the little people trump that.

Stillbelieve, why do you assume Mark Shea is a Democrat? I had the opposite impression of him from reading his columns. He’s even stated he’s a conservative and wouldn’t vote for Reid and others. Why does pointing out problems within one’s own fellow conservatives mean that one is therefore an opponent? Please stop proving his original column right. It only will make him smug. ;)

I guess I should clarify my above comment. I do not know or assume Mark Shea is a Republican, but it is my impression he is definitely not a Democrat.

Excuse me,but that does not even SOUND like Franklin.

Stillbelieve:

I am not a Democrat.  And the “five non-negotiables” is not a doctrine of Holy Church.  It’s a list concocted by conservative prolife Catholics a couple of years ago.  It’s true as far as it goes.  I would never support a candidate who supports any of the evils it warns against (though lots of conservative Catholics were *insistent* we had to support McCain and Bush, despite their support for ESCR).

It’s just that, you see, I don’t think human traditions (like the five non-negotiables list) should be allowed to trump the fullness of Church teaching.  So when the Church says that torture is an intrinsic grave evil, I believe her, even if the subject doesn’t happen to get mentioned on a list of non-negotiables concocted by conservative prolifers.

Thanks for, once again, illustrating my point.

“I would never support a candidate who supports any of the evils it warns against (though lots of conservative Catholics were *insistent* we had to support McCain and Bush, despite their support for ESCR).”

Mark, the following comes from page 4 of a five page address to the nation President George W. Bush made Aug 9, 2001 on Stem Cell Research.  I heard that address and was pleased with his decision, both as a Catholic and as a science student that had a year of embryology in collage including lab work.  Bush never did support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that would lead to the death of an embryo. Bush also vetoed legislation passed by Congress that authorized federal ESCR.  So why do you keep saying he supports or supported ESCR?

Here is his decision on that issue in his address to the nation:

“I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.

“And while we’re all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

“Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.

“As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

“I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.

“Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.”

“Stillbelieve, why do you assume Mark Shea is a Democrat?”

HUGOLINO, I didn’t mean to imply Mark was a Democrat.  He isn’t.  He isn’t anything because there is no party that meets his standards to which he’d give his name. 

I, myself have traveled through the spectrum of main political parties starting with the Democrats which I fondly remember during the Kennedy presidential campaign where my older brother, who was the VP of the Will County Young Democrats, introduced JFK to the rally in the center of town in Joliet, IL, where I was given my first duty as a Democrat – to get those Nixon signs out of the hands of those people holding them.  Being a good Democrat, and using our moral authority, I and another took the signs out of their hands.  Later, I almost knocked over a motorcycle cop escorting Kennedy’s barely moving open top convertible as it was making a turn to enter a parking garage; I reached up to shake his hand and he leaned down from his position sitting on top of the back seat to shake mine.  Those were the good days, when Democrats used to be pro America.  Fourteen years later, I learned through first hand experience climaxing with Roe v Wade, the image the Democrat Party had was false, i.e., that they were for the little guy.  I removed my name from the Democrat rolls and registered as an Independent, I could never be a bad, selfish, only for the rich Republican.  But volunteering the next several years in local state and congressional races for prolife candidates, who all were Republicans, I learned, again, from first hand experiences, that Republicans are nothing like what Democrats said they were.  I found them very decent people who not only were still pro America, the were mostly pro life as well, when prolife was not the popular thing to be according to the main stream media and the Democrat Party.  I became a Republican when the GOP added a Right to Life plank to their political platform.  I remember clearly thinking, “If they have that much principle to put a prolife plank in their party platform when it is so unpopular, I will give them my name identification in support of their Party.

Now, I know Mark, the purist, smirks at the thought that the GOP is really prolife, but he chooses to ignore the Democrat proabortion U.S. Senators, Catholics elected, are the reason Republican Presidents have not succeeded in getting their first team nominees on the Supreme Court.  Renown and much loved Catholic Democrat Senators like Ted Kennedy (a shell of a person compared to his brothers) and Joe Biden resorted to using an apparent favorite Catholic technique of character assassination to prevent suspected, potential jurist that might overturn Roe v. Wade from being seated on the Supreme Court.

I have remained a Catholic Republican ever since and continued growing into a real conservative as I continued learning and seeking the truth.

Now, I know Mark, the purist, smirks at the thought that the GOP is really prolife, but he chooses to ignore the Democrat proabortion U.S. Senators, Catholics elected, are the reason Republican Presidents have not succeeded in getting their first team nominees on the Supreme Court.

With the exception of Robert Bork, who are you referring to?  Bush’s “first team nominee” was the incompetent (and pro-abortion) Harriet Miers. Face it.  The Court has its current complexion, not merely because Democrats are zealously pro-choice, but because the GOP doesn’t much care that they are.

It’s a sad day when somebody who thinks we should not support what the Church calls intrinsic grave evil is shouted down as a “purist”.  I’m not asking for perfection.  I’m just asking that I not be badgered into supporting sins worthy of the fires of hell by Catholics who have somehow come to the conclusion that opposition to abortion taketh away the sins of the world.  It doesn’t.  I’m as opposed to abortion as you are.  I just don’t think it excuses me from opposing other things that are hellworthy too.

Speaking of GOP guys not caring, here is a piece by a local prolifer conservative on the two GOP guys who were seeking to unseat my Dem congressman, Jay Inslee.  One of them, Matthew Burke, was serious about being prolife.  The other, James Watkins, was vague and non-committal and didn’t want to be bother about the issue.  His obvious *real* interest was in money issues.  Guess which one is now in the final runoff against Inslee.  So I wrote in Burke on my ballot.

HUGOLINO, you understand Mark Shea’s point very well, but I don’t think you understand the counterpoint being made here at all.

The good sincere Catholics who hold Mark’s understanding of the “negotiables,” we’ll call “Group A.”

The good sincere Catholics who hold a conservative understanding of the “negotiables,” we’ll call “Group B.”

On the “Non-negotiables,” both groups hold faithfully to magisterial teaching.  On the “negotiables or prudential judgment issues,” both groups try earnestly and sincerely to understand the true meaning.  Both groups have their “experts” in Catholic theology, apology, or commentary.  Both groups strive for truth in coming to their conclusions of prudential judgment issues.  (Definition: In ethics, a “prudential judgment” is one where the circumstances must be weighed to determine the correct action. Generally, it applies to situations where two people could weigh the circumstances differently and >ethically</b>  come to different conclusions.)

I’ll use an over simplistic example to illustrate my point.

A person in Group B says “I hated to do it, but I had to give my 4 year old a spank today.”

The person in Group A says “What?  You tortured you own child!”

Group B: “no, not torture, just a swat on the bottom.”

Group A:  “the catechism states [2297… Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. ]  You used physical violence to punish the guilty.  That’s intrinsically evil!”

Is that really what the catechism says?  Yes.  Can someone still question whether that ,actually fits the definition of torture?  Yes.

Both the person in Group A, and the person in Group B is a good solid Catholic.  The person in Group B is not *believing* the spank is immoral, but choosing to do it *anyway* because of some other ideology.  They gave their child a spank because they *believe* that the Holy Church really is just fine with the spank.  (And, not just on a whim, since there are plenty of experts that hold that same position.)

The people commenting here, are saying that the people in “Group A” are labeling “ Group B”  as rejecting Church teaching because “Group A” comes to a different understanding than “Group B”.  I.e., Cafeteria Catholic, someone who puts their conservative ideology before their faith.

People want to duke out the 3 negotiables Mark has brought up as examples of Group B’s “dissent from Church teaching.”

But that’s not really the point.

What is happening at the Vatican right now?  Theologians (intentionally brought together who have differing views,) are in hashing out moral questions.  They charitably discuss the nuances of the moral dilemma, taking their time to make sure the outcome is right.

Meanwhile, here on the web, people are at each other’s throats screaming “The Pope said “X”, and THIS is what he meant by it.”  Other people are screaming, “The Pope said “Y”, and THIS is what he meant by it.”

Charity would prescribe that just because you come to a different conclusion, doesn’t mean the other group doesn’t take their faith seriously.  Or, the ONLY reason they can come to that conclusion is because of a political ideology being used FIRST.

I’ll use an over simplistic example to illustrate my point.

If, by “overly-simplistic” you mean “flatly dishonest” then that’s accurate.  In fact, I’ve never said spanking is torture, and would never say that (assuming by “spank” you mean the normal sort of swats parents give kids and not the vicious beating that abusive parents use to describe their actions that put kids in a coma).

If you subjected your child to simulated drowning, or placed the child in stress positions that caused her to suffocate to death, or stripped her naked and threw her in a cement cell that was 50 degrees and periodically threw freezing water on her throughout a long Afghan night until she died of hypothermia, or simply beat her to death, then not only I, but the US Department of Defense would call that not just torture, but murder.  And if you weren’t in the CIA, you might get the death penalty you so eagerly support.  If you are in the CIA, you would be shielded from prosecution by both the Bush and Obama Administrations.

You would not, however, escape God’s judgment.

So, please.  Try to be honest.

Mark, relax.

Truly, I picked that example simply because it was SO ridicules no one could get all worked up about it.

I am not trying to argue if spanking is torture or not.  I used an OVERSIMPLISTIC example to illustrate how two well meaning sides could come to different conclusions.

I am not here to debate you over the 2 prudential judgments, and a narrow definition of torture. I’m sure you have earnestly sought the truth, and are sure you have found it.

I’m saying that you should not ascribe a sinister MOTIVE to people who come to a different conclusion than you.

I’m glad, and sad to see I’m not the only one whose felt Mark is being used by the devil to prevent people from voting republican, by either not voting or voting for a write-in etc.  which only helps the party of death…..  and thats evil, but with Mark’s smugness he’d never realize that from these comments.  What might help you see the error of your way Mark, is watching Fr. Coripi, every Sat. night at 10:00, EWTN give it a try, it won’t take long if you really listen…...

I’m glad, and sad to see I’m not the only one whose felt Mark is being used by the devil to prevent people from voting republican,

And I remember just earlier this week when people were *baffled* about my weird claim that some Catholics are conflating human ideology with Sacred Tradition and the Kingdom of God.

“Not voting Republican” does not equal “voting for abortion” or “voting for Democrats” or “being used by the devil”.  Asking people to obey the fullness of Magisterial teaching is called “being Catholic”. 

Sheesh.

Truly, I picked that example simply because it was SO ridicules no one could get all worked up about it.

I am not trying to argue if spanking is torture or not.  I used an OVERSIMPLISTIC example to illustrate how two well meaning sides could come to different conclusions.

No.  You picked a deeply dishonest example to show that only ridiculous purists could possibly say that your political tribe promotes what the Church calls grave intrinsic evil, and therefore how right you are and how wrong anybody who is seriously troubled by the right’s embrace of torture is.  You point was not that I am well-meaning.  It was that I am, ‘ow you say?, a smirking purist who has no legitimate quarrel with the continual apologetics for torture by conservative Catholics.

Stop lying.

a smirking purist who has no legitimate quarrel with the continual apologetics for torture by conservative Catholics

I *never* said that.  You are always complaining that people are putting words in your mouth.

You want to argue about “the definition of toruture.” 
I want to say that you are ascribing a sinister MOTIVE to anyone who comes to a different understanding than you hold.

Off to work, will check back tonight.

I *never* said that.

Right.  You merely tag teamed off still believe, who did and whom you did not disagree with in the slightest.

Now, I know Mark, the purist, smirks at the thought that the GOP is really prolife

You then attempted to back up your charge by way a deeply dishonest “illustration” in which you tried to claim that people concerned about the conservative enthusiasm for torture were bedwetting ninnies who shout “torture” when somebody spanks a kid.

Really.  I’m done.  If you guys want to keep playing these silly games and lying to me, I see no point in the conversation.

“If you subjected your child to simulated drowning, or placed the child in stress positions that caused her to suffocate to death, or stripped her naked and threw her in a cement cell that was 50 degrees and periodically threw freezing water on her throughout a long Afghan night until she died of hypothermia, or simply beat her to death, then not only I, but the US Department of Defense would call that not just torture, but murder.”

Here it is again.  In Shea’s mind, if you believe it was reasonable to waterboard three al Qaeda leaders, then you HAVE TO also condone negligent homicide.  No one could possibly arrive at the conclusion that the circustances justified the waterboarding of KSM and friends, while also believing the incidents at Bagram Air Force Base were reprehensible and criminal.

“Speaking of GOP guys not caring, here is a piece by a local prolifer conservative on the two GOP guys who were seeking to unseat my Dem congressman, Jay Inslee.”

And in Delaware, Pro-Life Christine O’Donnell beat Pro-Choice Mike Castle for the Republican Senate Nomination, which is probably going to cost the GOP a Senate seat.  How does this factor into your “the GOP doesn’t really care about Pro-Life” theory?
And I will ask you again, which GOP leaders do not really care about Pro-Life issues (as you claimed above), and what is your evidence to support that claim?

Wow, really.  Just wow.

you tried to claim that people concerned about the conservative enthusiasm for torture were bedwetting ninnies who shout “torture” when somebody spanks a kid.

No, truly I did not.

I tried to illustrate how two sides could see things differently.  I honestly mulled over several scenarios to use as the example, and tried to think of one that you could at least *try* to see the other side (not agree with; just understand THEIR point of view.)  And, *in fact* you did at least partly acknowledge that the definition of torture could be firmed up.  Since I assumed that you would not find a spank on the behind to be torture (even though it does somewhat *fit* the catechism’s definition,) I was hoping that you could be charitable enough to entertain the idea that if a spank isn’t really torture, perhaps WELL MEANING people, sincere in their faith, can come up with a broader definition than you personally hold, for other reasons than “they put their politics first, and faith second.”

I have to ask you not to attribute other people’s statements to me.  Also, try to just read the words.  Don’t look for wild things to say “this is what he meant.”  I’ll say exactly what I mean.

I’m going to ignore the name calling (again,) and restate the point I REALLY AM making:

You should not ascribe a sinister MOTIVE to people who come to a different conclusion than you.

Sorry, my sentance should have read:

I was hoping that you could be charitable enough to entertain the idea that if a spank isn’t really torture, perhaps WELL MEANING people, sincere in their faith, can come up with a *narrower* definition than you personally hold, for other reasons than “they put their politics first, and faith second.”

The conservatives I know, like me, have struggled with issues surrounding war and peace, terrorism and security.  These are tough questions.  But I, like many other conservative Catholics, put the Church’s teaching first.  Might others not?  I am sure.  But again, I haven’t met many.

Pat, you say “put the Church’s teaching first.”  You are saying “if you vote for person who supports the war, you are not putting Church first?”

Carnen, may I butt in and put it in another perspective as a result of talking to someone recently?

I was talking to a women this past week who was in a dilemma because she doesn’t know of a candidate in the entire country that supports all Catholic positions.  I told her off the top of my head I can’t think of one either.  Then I said, “But their political parties take positions and so I vote for the party that is in support of the most of the Catholic non-negotiable issues positions - abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and homosexual marriage.”  I said the Republican Party is more opposed to those five issues than the Democrat Party.” She said, “But the Republican Party supports war!”  Her comment surprised me because she was a member of her church’s “Respect Life Committee.”  I told her war is not one of the non-negotiable issues.  She said but 10,000 people have been killed.  Again, I was surprised by her bringing up war that I didn’t think to counter - maybe, but 52,000,000 babies have been murdered here in our country alone.

It seems to me - if “life” is the issue - then abortion is the paramount one.

Pope John Paul II said it best in his letter, “The Vocation and the Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and the World” (Christifideles Laici), “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture - is false and illusory if the right-to-life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition of all other personal rights, is not defended with the maximum determination.”

How any Catholic can vote for a candidate in the pro-abortion party, the Democrat Party, for any reason makes whatever reason they have - “false and illusory.”  If one’s personal convictions cause them to hate the Republican Party, and they can’t vote for them, then refusing to vote for the Democrat Party at any level because of their pro-abortion position, the only position responsible for abortion-on-demand remaining the law of the land, is their demonstration of using “maximum determination” to defend the right to life.

Stilbelieve,

I am agreeing with you completley.  I read Pat Archbold’s article. Read comments.  Read article again, and wondered what he means.  Pat said The conservatives I know, like me, have struggled with issues surrounding war and peace, terrorism and security.  These are tough questions.  But I, like many other conservative Catholics, put the Church’s teaching first.

Many ppl here talked about the non-negotiables.  That has always been what I was taught.  So I am wondering if Pat is saying to put Church teaching first mean you follow non-negotables, and pudential judgement on peace terrorism and security.  Or is he trying to say that he believes like Mr. Shea that if you follow the churches teaching on peace terrorism and security you can only find them to be something a good catholic can not vote for.  So would have to vote for write in candidate.

I think point of article is crazy people in uniforms are not us.
People watching news show instead of going to church are not us.

But people who as you say “ vote for the party that is in support of the most of the Catholic non-negotiable issues positions - abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and homosexual marriage.” are like us.

Is that what Pat is saying to?

Pat, they exist, I’m married to one of ‘em and I love her!

Personally, I listen to and watch anything and try to keep an open mind. I know that 99% of the junk either side hurls at each other as being the end of the world is in fact just an unfortunate blip in American history, absolutely nothing compared to one syllable uttered by Our Lord and Savior!

I’ve read both of your articles and I hope you don’t resort to sniping at one another.  Remember the car the Apostles drove, 12 men in one Accord.

Is sanity slowly creeping into the Catholic Church?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece

Sandra, if you must wander off-topic, at least don’t do so only to say patently silly things.

That’s Ruth Gledhill talking, in the link you offer. If Gledhill reported on sanity of any kind, she’d describe it as “an unfamiliar phenomenon, at least to me, which I cannot identify, and am uncertain how to describe.”

The teaching to which Gledhill refers (though you wouldn’t know it to read her post) is one which dates back to the earliest days of the Church and represents no change at all; namely, that the books which comprise Sacred Scripture are to be interpreted “literally” but not “literalistically”: That is, in keeping with the intent of the original author of each text, and mindful of the literary styles and conventions used.

The literary styles and conventions of the first century and of the ten centuries prior to it did not in fact include scientific cosmologies, treatises on DNA, or timelines intended to convey rigorous mathematical exactness. Indeed, the order in which a list of events was related was often intended to convey the relative importance of each such event, rather than a chronology, as in the two stories of the creation of Man at the beginning of Genesis, wherein the last place and the first place are respectively given to human creation chronologically—but in each case, in order to convey that Man was the highest of God’s creatures, uniquely made in His image, while nevertheless remaining a creature.

Since St. Augustine was making points like these as early as AD 400, and learned them partly from Jewish rabbinical traditions dating far earlier than that, one can hardly portray any of this as BREAKING NEWS.

Sanity is not “slowly creeping into” the Catholic Church. It’s been there for some time, as in the perfectly rational and essentially unarguable opposition to gay marriages and the ordination of women. Ms. Gledhill doesn’t see it so, and perhaps you don’t either. But one has to have sufficient training and information, and a good mind, and an open mind, and a lot of time, to correctly arrive at the truth on particularly deep matters. Not everyone has all of the above, which is why God was pleased to give us the Church, “the pillar and bulwark of truth,” to help us understand things about which we might otherwise have been in error.

I stand corrected - sanity is not creeping into the Catholic Church.

Pat, fantastic article. You hit the nail on the head. Shea makes me nauseous—on good days.

I’m familiar w/ many of Mark Shea’s writings going back almost 15 years ago. I began visiting his blog back when he started it [2002?].

To make a long story short—somewhere along the line his postings began to be more annoying than anything else. “My theory” is that he’s fallen into something that we can all fall into if we’re not careful. And that is Shea’s rantings / opinions have become less about whatever subject matter he’s writing about, and more and more about “Mark Shea.”

I’ve read many knoweledgeable / respected Catholic theologians, attorneys, priests, philosophers, etc. present a different take on a particular subject than his ... and off he goes hurling opprobrium towards by-and-large anyone who disagrees with him. I just sit back and wonder what kind of ego trip is this man on.

Steve Dalton writes:

“[Mark Shea] will make outragous statements that have no connection to reality, and when somebody tries to call him on it, he will weasel out of it by ad hominum, by making false appeals to authority, or claim that you didn’t understand what he was talking about. Why the editorial board at NCR allows this pathetic excuse for a Catholic commentator to go on like this is a mystery. The other commentators don’t behave like this, so why is Shea allowed to act this way?”

This comment is rather preposterous considering who you seem to hold in high esteem, Mr. Dalton.

Here you are having multiple friendly discussions with anti-Jewish extremist Maurice Pinay, like this one in the comments box for his article on how Jews today aren’t really Jews at all.

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/11/hebrew-catholics-see-khazar-talmudists.html

Here are a couple more:

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/09/more-on-benedicts-holocaust-prostration.html

http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/12/vatican-ii-kabbalist-sage-rabbi-abraham.html

Here you are in the comments box of the website for another (somewhat less) anti-Jewish extremist Robert Sungenis, saying that he’s “right on the money” about “the Jews”:

http://bellarmineforum.xanga.com/650443158/question-58—-mark-shea-says-jews-still-have-a-covenant-with-god/

http://web.archive.org/web/20061230130731/http://www.catholicintl.com/qa/2006/qa-nov-06.htm

And here you are recommending Maurice Pinay in another comments box, too:

http://cumbey.blogspot.com/2007/08/dr-stanley-monteith-will-be-my.html

I found those in just a couple of minutes.  Here are a few of your quotes:

“Take down the menorahs, one at a time. Keep them out of the public square, and put them back iuaJewish neighbourhoods were vthey belong!”

“It just goes to show you, you can’t trust a so-called Jewish convert unless he denounces the ‘traditions of the elders’ just like Christ and the apostles did.”

“These folks are shameless hypocrites who know what the Jews are really like, and they know the power the Jews wield in our country, but they are willing to sell their souls to avoid the Jewish foot on the neck, or to procure some wealth or power in our Jewish dominated society.”

“Bob [Sungenis], you have been the target of a massive campaign by the Jewish establishment and their shabbat goys to destroy your apostolate and your reputation. Don’t lose heart. I know it must be infuriating when some of your enemies were your former co-workers at CAI. Well, our Lord had Judas, and you had them. But be of good cheer. Your enemies will soon be snared by their own crookedness, and their Jewish handlers will throw them to the dogs.”

Francisan, I’m embarassed for you. You can’t defend Mark Shea’s character or actions, so you attack mine. How UnChristian of you!

As for my negative statements about Jews and Judaism, Jews have always been anti-Christian from the word go. Jesus constantly criticized the Pharisee’s, who were the founders of the religion we call Judaism. These same people persecuted the early church and it’s leaders during the Apostlic era. Post-apostolic history shows groups of Jews continuing in their footsteps down to the present day. So, if my comments upset you, too bad. The truth is the truth, no matter what a misguilded soul like you wants to believe.

Your comments don’t upset me, Mr. Dalton.  But they do expose your hypocrisy.

I’m content to allow others to decide for themselves whether your statements about Jews and Judaism are “the truth” or something very different.  I hope they read your comments at those links and read up about your friends Maurice Pinay and Robert Sungenis. 

I’m also content to allow others to make up their minds about Mr. Shea, pro or con.

Francisian, the word hypocrisy was the word our Lord used to describe the Jews and their religion. Your words don’t upset me, they make me roar with laughter at your willfull ignorance in supporting a vicious man like Shea. Let the readers of this blog go to your links, but I hope they also go to the New Testament and the Church Fathers and read what they have to say about this subject. You sir, hijacked this blog post to talk about something that wasn’t the subject of this posting. That makes you a troll. By the way Frannie, I happen to be a descendant of an old family of Marrano Crypto-Jews, so maybe I might know more about this subject than you do. I’m finished for I said everything I need to defend myself from your libel and slander, and I have no desire to start a useless flame war on The Archbold’s blog page.

Nice response to his article. I wrote the following comment to his article as well:

This article is totally partisan, despite of what the author says claims.
Referring to the Left, Mark said: “That’s why I don’t bother trying to help them get their act together and win.  I don’t want them to win. ”
But in his entire article, he does not say ANYTHING negative about the Left, but just about Conservatism.

Read carefully, for example, this phrase of his:

“Indeed, [the Right] will be more immune to correction because it will have sealed itself off from any sense of a bad conscience by saying that, so long as it opposes abortion, all other forms of contempt for Church teaching are okay.  At least the Left doesn’t kid itself that it is faithful.  It openly and cheerfully treats Church teaching with scorn, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.”

He names the Conservatives a bunch of hypocrites and stubborn people while, indirectly, he praises the Leftists as being honest because, “at least,” they are openly fighting against the Church. Interesting analogy…

He also said: “There’s going to be a landslide this fall.  The Dems, in their blind arrogance,…”

This is another example that he is not at all objective. He is accusing in his article that there is something wrong with Conservatism as an ideology. But when referring to the Left, he implies that is the democrat’s arrogance that created the current mess. In other words, their ideology is good, but it is their personality that caused the mess.

I am an Eastern Rite Catholic priest from Eastern Europe who came in US a while ago (you might see from my writing that English is not my first language). I was born and raised in a communist country and I was indoctrinated in school with the socialist ideology.

When the communism failed in Eastern Europe, the old communists said that the communism is good, but people that were in charge to implement it did not do a good job. The neo-communists over there, hidden under the mask of “social-democracy,” are saying or implying the same thing now.
Mark is saying something similar here, that it is the democrat’s arrogance that got us into this mess.

No Mark, it is the Left ideology that got us into this mess. There were many arrogant leaders in the history that did many great things because they followed a good philosophy.

He continued: “That’s why there are Tea Parties.  People have had enough.  But, as James says, the anger of man does not bring about the righteousness of God.  The great failing of every revolutionary movement, says Chesterton, is that it knows what is wrong, but is very unclear about what is right.”

Again, Mark portrays these hard working Americans, Catholics or not, as an “angry mob”.  He even uses Scripture to do so.

Anger is part of the human behavior. Even Jesus got angry. The problem is what do you do with that anger? Paul says: “In your anger do not sin” (Eph. 4, 26). He did not say do not be angry. When you care, when you see injustice, you get angry. Paul is teaching us to put it to good use.

This article totally diminishes Mark’s credibility as an independent writer.

Mark can be harsh at times, but I’ve also seen him apologize for it (unlike many other writers and apologists).  He has an entire “label” at his blog for his apologies.  http://markshea.blogspot.com/search/label/Mea Culpa

I also think he’s pushed too hard at times in making points about people who call themselves conservatives.  Whether or not he intends it, it sometimes appears to me as though he thinks there’s an equal problem within conservatism as there is within liberalism from a Catholic point of view.  If so, I don’t agree. I think there’s a significant difference in both essence and magnitude.  I also don’t entirely agree with him on the death penalty or what he considers to be torture (mostly in regard to hypothetical scenarios on the latter).  But I think he has some important points to be made on these issues, to a point.  And I think it’s good that someone is out there making them. 

It looks to me as though many people missed that Mark used the phrase “ALLEGED conservative Catholics” in the example that Pat gave. He didn’t write “conservative Catholics”.  I’ve always taken his point to be that some people have perverted what it means to be “conservative” and I think he does have a point.  I do personally know Catholics who conflate being a good Republican with being a good Catholic.  I’ve never thought that he intended to broad-brush all conservatives without distinction.

One last point:  I don’t agree that your average blog commenter equates with your average American as Mark mentioned that he thought in this combox (above).  I see a lot more extremism and ugliness on blogs than I do in the real world.  People over-react much more on blogs and in comboxes.  But perhaps that’s just a matter of the disconnect so many people seem to experience when they get behind a computer screen.  Like the 90 pound weakling with road-rage behind the wheel of a huge SUV, they say things they would never say if they were face to face with another human being.  So, maybe Mark’s sample really isn’t as good as he thinks it is and that’s coloring his assessment?

Thank you for further clarifying your standards, Mr. Dalton.  According to your standards, Mark Shea is “a vicious man” and a “pathetic excuse for a Catholic commentator” who “makes outragous [sic] statements that have no connection to reality” and engages in “ad hominum [sic]” so he should be silenced.  But your friends Maurice Pinay and Robert Sungenis (and your own writings) are good and should receive wider distribution.

Just so we’re clear on the kinds of things Mark Shea should have been writing so as not to be “vicious” or “outrageous” and in need of silencing, let’s look at your own statements one last time as a guide for him in the future so he can be more charitable.  Assuming that there aren’t two Steve (Stephen) Dalton’s making such comments, I found two more examples from you to add to the list.  The last one at least proves that your concept of charity extends to both Jews and Muslims.

“The more I see of the cruel way Jews behave toward non-Jews, the less sympathy I have for their so-called suffering down through the ages!”  Steve Dalton http://www.realzionistnews.com/?p=402

“Take down the menorahs, one at a time. Keep them out of the public square, and put them back iuaJewish neighbourhoods were vthey belong!”  Steve Dalton http://mauricepinayblog.wordpress.com/2007/12/07/theyre-not-invincible/#comment-923

“It just goes to show you, you can’t trust a so-called Jewish convert unless he denounces the ‘traditions of the elders’ just like Christ and the apostles did.”  Steve Dalton http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/11/hebrew-catholics-see-khazar-talmudists.html?showComment=1196430600000#c602381864498255977

“These folks are shameless hypocrites who know what the Jews are really like, and they know the power the Jews wield in our country, but they are willing to sell their souls to avoid the Jewish foot on the neck, or to procure some wealth or power in our Jewish dominated society.” Steve Dalton http://web.archive.org/web/20070208183517/www.catholicintl.com/qa/2006/qa-nov-06.htm

“Bob [Sungenis], you have been the target of a massive campaign by the Jewish establishment and their shabbat goys to destroy your apostolate and your reputation. Don’t lose heart. I know it must be infuriating when some of your enemies were your former co-workers at CAI. Well, our Lord had Judas, and you had them. But be of good cheer. Your enemies will soon be snared by their own crookedness, and their Jewish handlers will throw them to the dogs.”  Steve Dalton http://web.archive.org/web/20070119000336/www.catholicintl.com/qa/qa.htm

“Lydia and Jeff, I like your ideas, but I like mine better. A-bomb Mecca, Medina, and Riyadh into glass. As long as these three cities exist, Islam will be a threat to the West. Everybody who is well informed knows oil money from the Saudi’s is used to finance the building of mosques and the printing of Islamic propaganda against the West. Nearly all of those that have committed acts of terrorism against us and other countries have been members of the Wahhabi sect of Islam that dominates Saudi Arabia. The Saudi monarchy should be told that Islam is coming to an end as a religion and a geo-political force. The citizens of those cities should be given fair warning to leave, then let the sand making begin. The Allah shouters will have to realize that Allah couldn’t save his own land, and they’ll start looking elsewhere for worship. This may seem harsh, but untill you destroy the very center of Islamic power, we’ll always be threatened by it. History have shown that Islam and the Muslims will never give up untill they’re defeated on the battlefield. I say end this nonsense once and for all by knocking out Islam at its very center.” Steve Dalton
http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2010/09/thoughts_on_september_11.html#comment-152470

I already said I wasn’t going to engage in a flame war on this blog, Frannie. If you don’t understand that Mark Shea is pro-leftist, (as Fr Chris documents in his post), that he’s a verbal abuser of anyone who disagrees with him, even to the point of using filthy langauge on his and other peoples blogs, and he’s willing to stalk people across the internet who dare disagree with him (like he did Joe d’Hippolito for four years) then nothing I say is going to be comprehended by you or other poor souls who are his followers.

And as for my positions on Judaism and Islam, again that has nothing to do with the topic being discussed on this post. I’m quite willing to discuss my feelings and opinions on these subjects on a post that deals with it, but not here. I would be hijacking the post like a common troll.

One final word about Shea: I never said he shold be silenced. You put that word in my mouth. What I have said that he should be disiplined by his peers and superiors (his priest, his bishop, etc) If they want to silence his, that’s their business. They ‘ll have to do the job, since his peers, like Jimmy Akin, has failed to get through to him.

Welcome,Fr.Chris

You also previously wrote that you were “finished” here and “I said everything I need to defend myself from your libel and slander” but that wasn’t true either.  Although, it’s interesting that you seem to think extensive quotes from your own statements are so bad as to constitute “libel and slander” or even a “flame war.”  Looking back at what you’ve written in this combox, if this was a “flame war”, then it was pretty much a unilateral conflagration. 

I was and continue to be content to let your own words and voluntary associations speak for themselves.  I’m also content to allow others to judge whether it’s relevant when one person publicly condemns another as “vicious”, “outrageous”, “pathetic”, and engaging in “ad hominum” (irony?) that can’t be tolerated while then using the kind of language that’s quoted from you above. 

As for Mark Shea, I’m also already content with the amount of reasonable (and charitable) criticisms and replies made in this combox by credible people.  That’s been covered more than sufficiently already.  Hopefully some good came of it for those on both sides. 

Now, if you need to have a third last word, by all means.

Fr Chris, I loved your analysis of Shea’s article. You’re right, he’s totally partisan and he doesn’t criticize the left. All of his support goes to leftist causes such as being anti-death penalty, anti-military, and being against traditional forms of religion and political views. In my mind, that marks him as a liberal or a leftist. And his coming out as a believer in the evolutionary theory isn’t going to burnish his rep as a reliable Catholic commentater either.

Many of those criticizing Mark Shea are the ones who appear to be partisan to me, and I am a registered Republican. If Shea is a leftist, then I think Pope John Paul II would also have to be put in the same category, because he held many of the same controversial stances on the death penalty, the war in Iraq and more. One difference is people respected Pope John Paul II, and rightfully so, but feel no compunction in throwing mud at Shea, who does not have the same manner of expressing himself by far.

People, please let this flame war die.

Hugolino, we didn’t start the flame war, Mark Shea did. He deliberately starts a controversy to draw attention to himself or to rant on his hobbyhorse. He is extremely partisan. He is, to use the primary meaning of the word, “an unreasoning, emotional adherant, blindly or unreasonably devoted”. His anti-death penalty position is a very good example of his partisanship. He ignores the Biblical, historical Church support, and valid scientific studies for the dp, but he’ll wail and moan about so-called “death penalty maxiumists” who simply want a guilty person executed for a murder he/she has committed. As for trying to hide Shea behind PJPII to ‘prove’ Shea isn’t leaning left, it doesn’t matter who’s holding the position, if the position is one historically held by the left, then that person is advocating a leftist idea no matter what his true motives might be. I respected JPII for his office, but when I saw his stand on the dp and his mishandling of the sex abuse crisis, it was harder for me to respect the man. “Throwing mud at Shea!?” Hugolino, Mark Shea is the biggest mudslinger in Catholic blogdom. He will not hesitate to use the most abusive, vile langauge to demean someone who has offended his partisan feelings. Sometimes he’ll harrass somebody for years to the point were it could be called stalking. Spend some time over at his CAEI blog and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Yeah, let the flaming end, tell Mark to behave like a good Chrisian!

Fr.Chris, did you see articles/writings such as “Shea’s style” concerning politcal/moral issues when you were in Eastern Europe?

Good grief!

When I first starting perusing Catholic blogs, Mark Shea was the go-to man.  But I fast realized that he was obsessed on a couple of issues “torture” (and I put that in quotes because Mark seems to not have a firm definition of it, but puts it in the pornography style of “I know it when I see it”).

I’ve decided that I’d rather get my Catholic doctrine from the living Magesterium of the Catholic Church, than the Magesterium of The Self-Important Internet Blowhard.

And that includes teachings such as “just war”, the natural right of self-defense, and the concept of subsidiarity in the helping of the poor.

Here is the difficulty, for me:

I think that Mark Shea writes in such a way that his expressions of contempt for X look very much like his expressions of contempt for Y in both breadth and intensity.

Then, when someone like Pat challenges him, he replies to say that by X he didn’t mean ALL conservatives, but only those whose “Americanism” trumps their Catholicism. This gives us the impression that he thinks it’s a really narrow group of outliers.

But he also refers to conservatism as “the thing that used to be conservatism” which suggests that he thinks it isn’t a narrow group of outliers amongst conservatives, but rather something intrinsic to conservatism itself, or at least something which has taken over conservatism in a wholesale way.

Which is it?

I mean, Mark Shea’s denunciations of left-liberalism/progressivism have such symmetry with his denunciations of “the thing that used to be conservatism” that it’s really hard not to conclude he’s drawing strong moral equivalence between the two. At least not until you call him on it and he backtracks to say that, no, no, he only meant certain conservatives; how could you have possibly gotten any impression otherwise?!

Well, I always get the other impression, and it looks like I’m not alone. When Mark Shea says he’s denouncing conservative Catholics “who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith?” he should realize that, as written, the phrase can be taken two ways. You can either read it as him denouncing “conservative Catholics, so many of whom put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith” or you can read it as him denouncing “that odd subset of conservative Catholics who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith.”

When called on it, Mark Shea claims he meant the first interpretation. But this doesn’t square with the unqualified, expansively derisive tone he uses, or the way his denunciation mirrors his denunciation of left-progressivism, for which his contempt is not narrowly targeted to some tiny subset of the ideology, but applies broadly to the ideology and all its adherents.

So, while I acknowledge that qualifying phrases like “who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith” exist in his notes and that these can be construed to limit his attack on conservatives to certain oddballs, that limited scope is never the first (or second, or third) impression I get when reading his denunciations.

My impression, which I hope (but doubt) is mistaken, is that Mark Shea enjoys being an all-hands accuser, a “death blossom” of vitriol shooting in all directions, and that qualifying phrases like “who put their conservative Americanism before their Catholic faith” exist to offer him a fig-leaf of accuracy when challenged…a fig-leaf he doesn’t enjoy adding because it interrupts the artistic symmetry of opening fire on all parties with equal vigor.

See, I used to say Mark Shea was the Ann Coulter of the Catholic blogosphere. But I don’t say that any more; he now appears to me to resemble Fr. Spike in Screwtape:

At the other church we have Fr. Spike. The humans are often puzzled to understand the range of his opinions – why he is one day almost a Communist and the next not far from some kind of theocratic Fascism – one day a scholastic, and the next prepared to deny human reason altogether – one day immersed in politics, and, the day after, declaring that all states of the world are equally “under judgment”. We, of course, see the connecting link, which is Hatred. The man cannot bring himself to teach anything which is not calculated to mock, grieve, puzzle, or humiliate his parents and their friends. A sermon which such people would accept would be to him as insipid as a poem which they could scan…. But I must warn you that he has one fatal defect: he really believes. And this may yet mar all.

And like Fr. Spike, of course, Mark Shea “really believes.” But that doesn’t mean his tone couldn’t use some governing and his denunciations some more careful prefacing.

Not everyone who writes like St. Jerome is particularly saintly while doing it.